CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 29 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16192/18 Igor DAMASCHIN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of defrauding the company for which he worked by reporting expenses which were higher than in reality, and pocketing the difference in price. He complains that a number of witnesses were not heard by any court, while others were not heard on appeal, and that the courts had failed to reason their apparent refusal to rely on certain evidence submitted by the defence, such as an expert report. The case raises an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of “equality of arms” observed and did the domestic courts directly examine all the witnesses whose testimony was relied on in convicting the applicant ( Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5   July 2011)? Did they give relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions?