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. 15366/17 Vera COLESNICENCO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 February 2017 communicated on 10 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Accused of fraud, the applicant was acquitted at first instance on the basis, inter alia , of witness statements. However, she was later convicted on appeal after the Court of Appeal gave a new interpretation to some of the witness statements. The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted her without hearing anew all the witness 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 her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)?