CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 17 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44393/15 Anatoli CUCEROV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 August 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged entrapment leading to his committing of an offense and conviction. The courts did not deal with the issue of entrapment, despite the applicant raising it and referring the Court’s case-law on the matter. It raises an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, was the applicant the victim of entrapment and did the domestic courts properly examine his arguments in this respect (see, for instance, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 49-74, ECHR 2008)?