CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } Published on 21 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24802/18 Afanasie IZBAȘ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 May 2018 communicated on 1 July 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of embezzlement and forgery of official documents. Between 2012-2013 the police initiated several criminal proceedings, in   rem , for alleged fraud, embezzlement and forgery of official documents. All these proceedings were merged into one criminal case. On 5 September 2013 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the allegation of fraud. On 31 December 2013 the prosecuting authorities charged the applicant with embezzlement on an especially large scale and with forgery of official documents. On 10 March 2015 the applicant was acquitted at first instance. The court noted, inter alia, that the applicant could not be held criminally liable for embezzlement as the goods had not been entrusted to his administration by the victim. The court also noted that the prosecuting authorities had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges of forgery of official documents. On 6 March 2017 the applicant was convicted, on appeal, of embezzlement on an especially large scale, as well as of forgery of official documents, after the Court of Appeal having given a new interpretation to the legal provisions applied in the present case. During the appeal proceedings, the applicant relied on the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice on the judicial practice in criminal cases concerning the misappropriation of assets ( Hotărîrea Plenului Curţii Supreme de Justiţie a Republicii Moldova nr. 23 din 28.06.2004) which, in his opinion, had been followed by the first-instance court. By a final decision of 5 December 2017, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant was convicted of embezzlement that had caused considerable damage but was exempted from criminal liability for forgery of official documents due to the expiration of the limitation period. The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complains that the courts’ decisions contained conflicting findings and reasoning contrary to the national case-law, in particular the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice on the judicial practice in criminal cases concerning the asset misappropriation, in breach of the principle of legal certainty. QUESTIONS 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 ( see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)? In particular:   (i)   did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for their decisions to convict the applicant, notably by replying to his most serious arguments ( see Mitrofan v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 50054/07, §§ 48-55, 15   January 2013)?   (ii)   was the principle of legal certainty respected in the course of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, particularly when they were called to assess the criminal liability of the applicant for embezzlement, having in mind the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice on the judicial practice in criminal cases concerning the asset misappropriation?