CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mars 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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 March 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27670/18 Oleg PRUTEANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 5 June 2018 communicated on 11 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s criminal prosecution on charges of heading a criminal organisation specialised in international drug trafficking. During the eight months of his pre-trial detention the applicant was not allowed to receive visits from his family and, in an interview to the national television, the head of the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, Mr   N.C., stated that he was the head of an international criminal organisation and that there was no doubt about his guilt. The applicant complains about the breach of his right to be presumed innocent as a result of the declaration by Mr N.C. before his conviction. He also complains about a breach of his right to respect for his family life.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the statement made by Mr N.C. in his interview to the National Television on 15 January 2018 compatible with the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent,   as   guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention ( Popovici v. Moldova , nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, §§ 76-79, 27 November 2007)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant entitled under domestic prison regulations to be visited by his family during his pre-trial detention? The Government are asked to provide the Court with factual information regarding the applicant’s contact with his family. Was any failure to ensure the applicant’s right to respect for his family life in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ( Ostrovar v. Moldova , no. 35207/03, §§ 103-108, 13 September 2005)?