CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43504/18 Oxana GARBUZ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 6 September 2018 communicated on 10 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of deliberate non-execution of a court decision. In a judgment of 17 December 2013, the Rîșcani District Court ordered the applicant to repay a debt to a private individual. On 17 March 2015 the bailiff drew up a contravention report against the applicant for failure to comply with the above judgment. On 15 April 2015 a court found the applicant guilty of committing the contravention and sanctioned her with an administrative fine. On 2 July 2015 the police initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for deliberate non-execution of a court decision. On 26 April 2017 the Rîșcani District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to a fine. The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia , that the court had convicted her without any evidence that she had deliberately avoided the execution of the judgment of 17 December 2013. She emphasised, in particular, that she had paid a part of the debt (and was trying to obtain money to pay the rest). The appellate court quashed the first-instance judgment, finding the applicant not guilty. The prosecutor appealed on points of law against that decision. On 13 February 2018, 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 court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Justice found that proof of the applicant’s guilt had been duly established by the first-instance court and that her actions had been properly classified under criminal law. It did not comment on the applicant’s argument that she had paid a part of the debt. The reasoned decision of the Supreme Court of Justice was delivered on 6   March 2018. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the unfairness of the domestic proceedings in that the domestic courts did not reason their judgments and did not address her main arguments, including the fact that she had paid the part of the debt, which made the non-execution not deliberate. She further complains that neither she nor her lawyer were informed about the prosecutor’s appeal on points of law and, therefore, could not submit their written observations, contrary to the principle of equality of arms. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010)? 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 Fomin v. Moldova , no. 36755/06, §§ 24-34, 11   October 2011)? 2.     Was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence to submit its written observations on the appeal on points of law filed by the prosecutor? (see Zahirović v. Croatia , no.   58590/11, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013)?