CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 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 28 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 81140/17 Valeriu MUSTEAŢĂ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 November 2017 communicated on 10 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Accused of being responsible for a serious traffic accident, the applicant was acquitted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of witness statements. However, the above judgment was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Justice and the applicant was found guilty on the basis of a new interpretation given by that court to the witness statements. The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Supreme Court of Justice 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)?