5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Chișinău. At the time of the events, he was a bank armoured vehicle driver.
6.  At around 10.55 a.m. on 12 August 2005 the applicant went around an illegally parked bus while driving an armoured vehicle. While he was completing the manoeuvre, the bus started moving and to prevent having an accident with the armoured vehicle it stopped abruptly. As a result of the sudden stop a bus passenger, C., fell from her seat and suffered moderately severe injuries.
7.  On 1 September 2005 a criminal investigation was initiated. The prosecutor heard the applicant, the victim C., the bus driver D., a witness who had been sitting in the applicant’s vehicle and another two witnesses who had been passengers on the bus (S. and V.).
8.  On 7 October 2005 D. was charged with violating traffic rules, resulting in C.’s injuries.
9.  On 10 October 2005 the applicant and D. were interviewed face-to-face. According to the applicant, he had completed the manoeuvre around the stationary bus and taken the lane in front of it after making sure the bus was still stationary. He had then signalled to turn right and used the horn to alert the driver of his intentions. According to D., the applicant’s car had turned right without any warning and he had been forced to stop abruptly to prevent an accident.
10.  The same day the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against D. for lack of evidence and instead interviewed him as a witness.
11.  On 21 October 2005 the applicant was charged with violating traffic rules, resulting in C.’s injuries.
12.  During the course of the proceedings the Botanica District Court heard the same witnesses as the prosecutor. The court also examined a site investigation report and a sketch map of the scene of the incident, both drawn up on 12 August 2005 at 12.20 p.m. in only D.’s presence.
13.  The court considered the testimony of C. and the two bus passengers unreliable. They claimed that the applicant had performed a sudden manoeuvre which had obliged D. to suddenly stop the bus. The court considered that none of them had seen any of the events themselves and that their impression that the applicant was guilty was because the bus driver blamed him. The court also considered D.’s testimony unreliable because the same charges had been previously brought against him. The court noted that charges had been brought against the applicant based on statements by D. made shortly after the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued, without re-interviewing the other witnesses. The court also noted that the site investigation report and the sketch map had not been drawn up immediately after the incident, that the police had gone to the scene several hours later and had been joined only by D., that the applicant’s objections had not been reflected in the documents, and that the sketch map did not correspond to the statements given by all the witnesses shortly after the incident.
14.  In a judgment of 27 March 2006 the Botanica District Court acquitted the applicant for the reasons given above. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide reliable evidence in support of the contention that the applicant’s actions had obliged D. to suddenly stop the bus. The prosecutor appealed.
15.  On 23 May 2006 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. It noted that the first-instance court had correctly scrutinised all the evidence and had provided reasons supporting the findings about the unreliability of the witness statements, referring to the testimony of the two passengers. The prosecutor appealed on points of law.
16.  On 17 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing at which the applicant, his representative and the prosecutor were present. The court upheld the prosecutor’s appeal on points of law, quashed the appellate judgment and ordered a rehearing of the case in accordance with the provisions of Article 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely that any examination had to be in accordance with the rules applicable in proceedings before the first-instance court. The court found that the appellate court had not thoroughly stated its position on the assessment of the statements made by C., D. and the two passengers, but had merely relied on evidence in the applicant’s favour.
17.  After rehearing the case, on 28 December 2006 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The court analysed the witness testimony and the site investigation report and the sketch map, providing reasons why the evidence was unreliable. The prosecutor appealed on points of law.
18.  On 26 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing at which the applicant, his representative and the prosecutor were present. The court upheld the prosecutor’s appeal on points of law and ordered a rehearing of the case. The court provided reasoning similar to that in its judgment of 17 October 2006.
19.  Pursuant to the verbatim record of the appellate hearing of 25 October 2007 the applicant and his lawyer did not object to the court continuing to examine the case without recalling the victim and did not request the recalling of witnesses. On the same day, the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s appeal, quashed the judgment of the Botanica District Court of 27 March 2006, found the applicant guilty and ordered him to pay an administrative fine of 3,000 Moldovan lei (MDL – approximately 194 euros (EUR)) and damages to C. in the amount of MDL 2,500 (approximately EUR 162). The court referred to a list of evidence, including the disputed statements of C., D. and the two witnesses, without providing any additional reasons.
20.  The applicant appealed and outlined, inter alia, the discrepancies in the witness statements, which had been identified by the first-instance court after hearing them and which had not been clarified by the appellate court. On 13 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the applicant’s appeal in the absence of the parties and declared it inadmissible.
21.  The applicant was served with this judgment on 24 May 2008.