CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 4 March 2020 Published on 23 March 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40427/18 Vitalie MELEGA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 16 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns fairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Accused of influence paddling (trafic de influiență) , the applicant was acquitted at first instance on the basis, inter alia , of several witness statements. However, he was convicted on appeal after the Court of Appeal gave a new interpretation to the evidence. The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without hearing anew the witnesses. 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)?