CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB24F5E38 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 3 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24179/18 Nicoleta MALAI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 8 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand and under house arrest for at least five months. The applicant was the mayor of a village at the material time. According to her allegations, after refusing to join the governing party, she started experiencing harassment from the Prosecutor’s Office. In November 2017 she was arrested and placed in detention on remand for two days, after which she was placed under house arrest until May 2018. She was accused of acts of corruption linked with a public auction for the modernisation of the village’s aqueduct. In particular, she was accused of perceiving a bribe from the company who had won the auction. The application for the applicant’s detention and the courts’ decisions ordering and prolonging the house arrest do not contain any piece of evidence in support of the alleged bribing. The suspicion is justified only with the fact that there were other companies who had proposed a lower price than the company who had eventually won the auction. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence and under Article   5 §   3 that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering and prolonging her house arrest.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s house arrest based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed the criminal offence imputed to her (sefe Muşuc v. Moldova , no. 42440/06, §§ 29-34, 6   November 2007)?   2.     Was the applicant’s house arrest based on relevant and sufficient reasons as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention ( Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 115-123, 5 July 2016)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.