CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juin 2018

.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 11 June 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44896/11 Mihail CIOBANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 July 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Accused of provoking the death of a person as a result of a car accident, the applicant was acquitted at first instance. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and convicted the applicant without hearing anew the applicant and the witnesses. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal without conducting a hearing. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without conducting a proper hearing; because the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the first instance court was lodged out of time and because the Court of Appeal failed to give sufficient reasons in its judgment. 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 ( Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)?