CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36013/13 Serghei COSOVAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 April 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was accused of practicing an unauthorised business activity, namely that he ran a paid parking lot without proper authorisation, between April and November 2006. The criminal proceedings were initiated in January 2007. However, the case never reached the courts and, in June 2011, the applicant requested that the proceedings be discontinued on account of the statute of limitations. By a decision of 27 June 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the case upheld the applicant’s request and discontinued the criminal proceedings against him on account of the statute of limitations. At the same time the prosecutor ordered the seizure of 116,428 Moldovan Lei (the equivalent of some 7,080 Euro), an amount representing the alleged proceeds of the applicant’s criminal activity. The applicant challenged without success the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor and before the investigating judge arguing, inter alia , that the seizure of the above amount of money had represented a criminal punishment outside of the framework of a normal criminal trial decided by a court. He also argued that it represented a breach of his right to be presumed innocent. Before the Court the applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 2 that he did not have a fair trial and that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case ( Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   25424/09, § 94, ECHR 2013)?