CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } Communicated on 4 March 2020 Published on 23 March 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56180/15 Andrei DUBALARI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 3 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was asked by a neighbour (M.) to help him rent a car because he did not have his driving licence and could not therefore do it himself. They went together to a car rental company where the applicant concluded a rental contract for one day and gave the car to the neighbour. Later it appeared that the applicant’s neighbour gave the car to a third   person (R.) who stole and sold it. Both the applicant and the rental company lodged criminal complaints. The applicant, M., and R. were later accused of fraud. During the criminal investigation, R. admitted to have used M. and the applicant for the renting purposes. He also admitted to have carried out the same scheme on several other occasions with the help of other persons. It did not appear from R.’s statements or those of other co-accused that the applicant had been involved in any way in the scheme or that he was aware about what was about to happen to the car rented by him and transmitted to M. The first instance court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the basis of lack of evidence. It found R. guilty and allowed the civil action against both the applicant and R. The Court of Appeal reversed the above judgment, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. In so doing, it did not hear any witnesses, but merely read out the statements made by them during the investigation phase of the proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without conducting a proper hearing and because he did not have the possibility to put questions to witnesses. He also complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent was breached and under Article 1 of Protocol No.   4 that he was imprisoned for a debt resulting from a civil law contract. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Popovici v. Moldova , nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, 27   November 2007; Dan   v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)? Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case ( Telfner v. Austria , no.   33501/96, §   18, 20 March 2001)? Was the applicant sentenced and deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of his inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?