CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53660/15 Nelli MOLDOVEANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of forty days, in criminal proceedings in which she was accused of fraud. The proceedings were initiated as a result of a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant’s creditor after the applicant had failed to return him a debt of some 25,000 euros. The applicant pleaded, and the creditor did not contest, that the money in question represented a loan. She also presented copies of several handwritten receipts and explained that she could not return the loan due to serious financial difficulties. Nevertheless, the prosecutor’s request to detain the applicant on remand was accepted by the domestic courts. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence and that it was not based on relevant sufficient reasons. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 4 to the Convention that she had been deprived of her liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision to detain the applicant based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence (see Muşuc v.   Moldova , no. 42440/06, §§ 29-34, 6 November 2007) and was it based on relevant and suficient reasons (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, ECHR 2016 (extracts)? 2.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty merely on the ground of her inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol   No. 4 to the Convention?