CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61731/17 Veaceslav BEȚ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 August 2017 communicated on 30 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s loss of ownership of his car in criminal proceedings against a third person (F.). The car was taken from him as proceeds of F.’s criminal activity. No proceedings of any kind were instituted against the applicant, who was not heard by the courts and only made written appeals (in the part concerning the car) against the judgments convicting F. Two witnesses, who alleged that the car in fact belonged to F. and was only formally registered in the applicant’s name, were heard by the first-instance court, where the applicant was not present, and were not heard by any of the higher courts, despite the express request by the applicant and F. The entire proceedings were held in camera despite requests by F. and the applicant to allow the public in the court room. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because he was never heard by the courts on the issue of his property right over the car. Moreover, neither him nor the two witnesses arguing against his claim of legitimate ownership of the car, were heard in higher courts. Finally, the proceedings were not public, in the absence of valid reasons, and the courts did not give sufficient reasons for their judgments in respect of his car. He also complains of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because he was arbitrarily deprived of ownership of his car, the courts not giving sufficient reasons for their decisions to confiscate it.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant able to present his case directly before the courts and in a public hearing, as concerns his alleged ownership over his car? Was he able to have the witnesses challenging his ownership of the car cross-examined? Did the courts give sufficient reasons for depriving the applicant of his ownership of the car? ( Igor Pascari v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   25555/10, § 27, 30 August 2016; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no.   43395/09, § 163, 23 February 2017; and Faig Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60802/09, §§   19 et seq. , 26 January 2017)   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the applicant subjected to “an individual and excessive burden”, within the meaning of that provision, as a result of the deprivation of his car as a result of proceedings in which he was not a party and was not heard? ( Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 107 et seq. , 11   December 2018)