CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2022

.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 21 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 78637/17 Sergiu STICI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 2 November 2017 communicated on 2 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand for a period exceeding eighteen months on charges of murder and kidnapping. The applicant’s detention was prolonged every month on the basis of the same allegedly stereotyped arguments and the courts rejected the applicant’s argument that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence imputed to him. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence imputed to him and that the length of his pre-trial detention was contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution which limited the duration of pre-trial detention to a period of twelve months. He also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence (see Muşuc v.   Moldova , no. 42440/06, §§ 29-34, 6 November 2007)?   Moreover, was the deprivation of liberty lawful for the purposes of Article 25 of the Constitution after the expiration of twelve months ( Savca v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   17963/08, § 51, 15 March 2016)?   2.     Were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts to remand the applicant in custody and to prolong her detention, reasonable and sufficient for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v.   the   Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 115-23, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?