CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 21 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 16416/18 Dmitri BARAGHIN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 27 March 2018 communicated on 1 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of rape of a minor. The first-instance court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. In appeal, the applicant challenged the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence. The appellate court quashed the first-instance judgment, finding the applicant not guilty. The prosecutor appealed on points of law against that decision. On 7 November 2017, having examined the case in the absence of the parties, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the prosecutor’s appeal on points of law, quashed the decision of the appellate court, and upheld the first ‑ instance’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Justice found that proof of the applicant’s guilt had been duly established at trial and that his actions had been properly classified under criminal law. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, that he and/or his lawyer were not informed of the prosecutor’s appeal on points of law, and therefore could not submit written observations, in breach of the principle of equality of arms and of the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence .   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010)? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence to submit its written observations before the Supreme Court of Justice (see Zahirović v. Croatia , no. 58590/11, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013 and Nevzlin v. Russia , no. 26679/08, § 152, 18 January 2022)?