CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13451/15 Tatiana TRISTAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of a crime with which she could allegedly no longer be charged after the relevant criminal law provision had been amended. It raises issues under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 and/or 7 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, could the applicant be convicted of the crime provided under Section 328(3)(b) of the Moldovan Criminal Code and was the notion of a “person with public dignity powers” (“ persoană cu funcție de demnitate publică” ) applied extensively to her detriment (see, for instance, S.W. v. United Kingdom , no. 20166/92, § 95, 22 November 1995 and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 138, ECHR 2008)? Did the law relied on to convict the applicant satisfy the “quality of the law” requirements of accessibility and foreseeability (see Kafkaris , cited above, §   140)?