CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2022

.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 } Published on 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2788/17 Andrian BALAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 29 December 2016 communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Accused of robbery, the applicant was acquitted at first instance on the basis, inter alia , of witness statements. However, he was later convicted on appeal after the Court of Appeal gave a new interpretation to those statements. The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without hearing anew the statements relied upon for the purposes of the conviction. 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)?