CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } Communicated on 19 February 2021 Published on 8 March 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15230/18 Valentin EȘANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention and house arrest for a period of more than six months. The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 3 that his deprivation of liberty was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that the courts merely reproduced the grounds from detention contained in the relevant articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure without explaining how they applied to his particular case. After the courts replaced the applicant’s house arrest with detention in prison on the basis of statements of two police officers to the effect that he had allegedly breached the rules of house arrest, the applicant requested for those officers to be heard in court during the proceedings concerning his detention. However, the courts rejected the request and the applicant complains that the rejection was contrary to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty based on relevant and sufficient reasons as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention ( Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 115-123, 5 July 2016)?   2.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the Chişinău Court of Appeal’s refusal to examine witness compatible with that provision (see Becciev v. Moldova , no. 9190/03, §§ 73-76, 4 October 2005)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.