CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 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 3 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14043/18 Denislam MAŞAEV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 10 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand and under house arrest for more than two months, on suspicion of acts of corruption allegedly committed by him. The applications for the applicant’s remand in custody addressed by prosecutors to the competent courts and the courts’ decisions to deprive the applicant of his liberty failed to cite any relevant piece of evidence to support the allegation that he had committed the offence imputed to him. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention and his house arrest were not based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention and house arrest based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence imputed to him (see Muşuc v. Moldova , no. 42440/06, §§ 29-34, 6   November 2007)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.