CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 2026

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA38CC292 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s9910D5F4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22164/18 Sergiu ŢUŞCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 April 2018 communicated on 6 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of administrative proceedings against the applicant, mainly on account of not being given the opportunity to question in court the victim of a traffic accident, an expert and a witness on his behalf. On 28 March 2016 the applicant was involved in the traffic accident for which, according to the findings issued on the same day by the traffic police, he was held responsible. He was imposed an administrative fine of 800   Moldovan lei (36   euros at the time) and added five penalty points to his driving licence. The applicant challenged that decision in court. On 23 June 2016 in order to clarify exactly what had happened, the court granted a request by the applicant to have an expert determine the circumstances of the accident. Given that the expert had allegedly failed, in an ensuing report, to address all the applicant’s questions, the applicant asked the court to hear the expert. He also requested that the court hear his brother as a witness and the victim of the accident, but those requests were denied. On 7 August 2017 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s appeal, upholding the fine imposed on him and the traffic police’s decision of 28   March 2016 that he had been responsible for the accident. On 14 August 2017 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law which was rejected as unfounded by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 6 November 2017. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, that the domestic courts breached the principle of equality of arms by refusing his requests to produce evidence in his defence (that is, to hear the victim, the expert and a witness on his behalf). He also complains that the contravention report was drafted with multiple procedural violations and that the courts failed to address this issue.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular: (a) Was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence in the present its case? (b) Was the applicant’s request to examine the victim of the accident and the applicant’s brother as defence witnesses sufficiently reasoned and relevant to the subject matter of the accusation? If so: 2.     Did the domestic courts consider the relevance of these testimonies and provided sufficient reasons for their decision not to examine the witnesses at trial? 3.     Did the domestic courts’ decision not to examine these witnesses undermine the overall fairness of the proceedings (see Murtazaliyeva v.   Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 158, 18 December 2018, Abdullayev v.   Azerbaijan , no. 6005/08, § 58-66, 7 March 2019 and Constantinides v.   Greece , no. 76438/12, 6 October 2016)? The Government are requested to submit to the Court copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s domestic case.