CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2021

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAAFA091D { width:127.28%; border-collapse:collapse } .s4C1D0690 { width:7.34%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#969696 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB4627D5E { width:14.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#969696 } .s7528098 { width:17.86%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#969696 } .sC55C7090 { width:13.58%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#969696 } .sB795BEA9 { width:25.9%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#969696 } .s474297C4 { width:20.58%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#969696 } .sF0BBA7F3 { width:7.34%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s73EF23F3 { width:14.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s363C1104 { width:17.86%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sA396404 { width:13.58%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s97603BA3 { width:25.9%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s37255390 { width:20.58%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s613E19A7 { width:7.34%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s377A944F { width:14.72%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4D836B0 { width:17.86%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B811F36 { width:13.58%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s3453096 { width:25.9%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s8B3E2DB3 { width:20.58%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 15 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18059/16 Tudor GUZUN against the Republic of Moldova and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern alleged entrapment by or under supervision of State agents, in order to provoke the commission of criminal offences. They raise an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Application no. 18059/16 concerns, in addition, the alleged failure to produce and verify certain evidence in favour of the defence, as well as a general issue of fairness of the proceedings before the Chișinău Court of Appeal, which scheduled multiple cases at the same time and reserved some 15   minutes to each. Moreover, an official declared to several TV channel reporters that the applicant had taken a bribe, before any court decision finding so. These aspects raise additional issues under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in each of the cases mentioned above? In particular, was each of the applicants the victim of “entrapment” into committing a criminal offence (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008)?   2.     In application no. 18059/16, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 in terms of ensuring observance of the principle of “equality of arms” ( Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, 18 December 2018)?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in application no. 18059/16 ( Popovici v. Moldova , nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, 27 November 2007)? APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality   Represented by 1. 18059/16 Guzun v. the Republic of Moldova 28/03/2016 Tudor GUZUN 1986 Porumbeni Moldovan     2. 48999/16 Canila v. the Republic of Moldova 08/08/2016 Ruslan CANILA 1983 Glodeni Moldovan   Vasile LUCANOVSCHI 3. 81258/17 Priguza v. the Republic of Moldova 20/11/2017 Constantin PRIGUZA 1956 Straseni Moldovan   Doina Ioana   STRĂISTEANU