CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 77583/17 Mihail CREȚU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 October 2017 communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial and right to a reasoned court judgment, as provided under Article 6 of the Convention. On 5 December 2016 the Botanica prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant’s son C.S. for alleged theft of a bicycle. Since C.S. was 8 years old and was not criminally liable, the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation and charged the applicant, under Article 63 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, of failing to duly fulfil his parental duties of educating and caring for his son. On 28 February 2017, the Chișinău District Court found the applicant guilty and fined him 300   Moldovan lei (14 euros). The court argued that the applicant’s liability resulted from the legal presumption that parents are responsible for the illegal actions of their children. The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia , that the court had convicted him without any evidence that could prove he had failed to fulfil his duty to bring up his son and the fact that his son had committed an illegal act did not automatically make him administratively liable. On 25 April 2017 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded, upholding the reasons adduced by the Chișinău District Court. The applicant complains, under Article 6 §1 of the Convention, about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings because the domestic judgments were arbitrary and unreasoned and did not rely on any evidence. They automatically found that he had committed an offence once criminal proceedings against his son were discontinued. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§   83-84, 11 July 2017)? In particular, did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for their decisions, to convict the applicant, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no. 13185/07, §§ 54-59, 8 November 2018; Fomin v. Moldova , no. 36755/06, §§ 24-34, 11 October 2011)?