CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12846/18 Igor DAMASCHIN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 February 2018 communicated on 4 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a search of the applicant’s apartment, which was carried out on the basis of a prosecutor’s order. The lawfulness of the search was subsequently confirmed by an investigating judge. In the course of criminal proceedings on charges of tax evasion, on 8   June   2017 the investigating judge authorised searches of the headquarters of three companies and the vehicles of one of the companies’ managers (the applicant), ordering the seizure of the following: documents and records attesting to fictitious transactions or unlawful activities; accounting documents; seals; invoices; financial assets with no justifiable origin; computers; hard disks and other information carriers; and any other objects that could serve as evidence in the criminal case. The wording of the search warrants was identical. On 22 June 2017 the prosecutor ordered a search of the applicant’s apartment, which had not been covered by the search warrants authorised by the judge on 8 June 2017. The wording of the order was, in essence, identical to the wording of the search warrants issued on 8 June 2017. Still on 22 June 2017, the applicant’s home was searched in the presence of his wife. No documents or any other objects that could serve as evidence in the criminal case were found or seized. On 23 June 2017 the prosecutor submitted a request to the investigating judge, asking the judge to confirm the lawfulness of the search of the applicant’s apartment. The investigating judge reviewed that request on 31 July 2017 and formally confirmed the lawfulness of the search basing his decision on general legal provisions without addressing the question of urgency and necessity of the search. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that he had had no procedural standing in the criminal proceedings when the searches had been ordered. He further submitted that the prosecutor’s order to search his apartment had not met the requirements set forth by law, and that the investigating judge’s decision to confirm the lawfulness of that search had not included any relevant reasons and had lacked supporting evidence. On 22 August 2017 the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 29 August 2017. The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that the search of his apartment was carried out unlawfully and that the investigating judge’s decision to confirm the lawfulness of that search did not include any relevant reasons and lacked supporting evidence. He also argues that the courts did not explain why the search had been necessary and urgent.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a   violation   of   Article   8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home as a result of the search of his apartment? 2.     Was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the search order of 22 June 2017 and subsequent court decisions confirming its lawfulness contain sufficient reasons justifying the interference with the applicant’s private life and home? Moreover, were there effective and sufficient safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness (see Bostan v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   52507/09, 8 December 2020; Mancevschi v. Moldova , no. 33066/04, 7   October 2008; and Posevini v. Bulgaria , no. 63638/14, 19 January 2017)? The Government are requested to submit a copy of all relevant documents (orders, decisions, supporting evidence, etc.) related to all the searches carried out in the course of the criminal proceedings on charges of tax evasion (case no. 2017890200).