CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 883/19 Radion GLAVAŢCHI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 19 December 2018 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons to detain the applicant in pre-trial detention for a period of over nine months. The applicant, who did not have a driving licence, was driving a car during the night and collided with a person riding a bicycle which was not equipped with any lights or reflectors. As a result of the accident that person died. The applicant was not arrested during the first three months of the proceedings and, according to him, he cooperated with the prosecution. At one point he was even discharged on the basis of an amnesty law. However, in October 2017 he was charged again and placed in pre-trial detention which was later prolonged on numerous occasions. The reasons relied upon for ordering and prolonging his detention were the risk of his absconding and the risk of interfering with witnesses. The applicant complains that those reasons were not relevant and sufficient within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s remand in custody 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.