CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37141/18 Dan BAHNARU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 July 2018 communicated on 19 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest and detention pending trial on suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. The applicant complains that he was arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, notably in the absence of any finding by the fiscal authority of any wrongdoing on his part (Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention). He also submits that the courts gave general reasons for ordering his detention pending trial, without reference to any specific facts to support the risk of interfering with the investigation or any other risk from choosing a preventive measure not involving detention (Article 5 § 3). The application raises issues under Article 5 § 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant arrested on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence ( Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, 3 March 2020)?   2.     Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly insufficient reasons for the applicant’s detention pending trial and then house arrest ( Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016)?