SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SZABO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 17387/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
19 November 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Szabo v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 17387/17) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 February 2017 by a Hungarian national, Mr Attila Szabo (“the applicant”), who was born in 1971, lives in Chișinău and was represented by Ms I. Mifsud Wismayer, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the quashing of a judgment by upholding an allegedly time-barred appeal to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr D. Obadă, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the decision to inform the Hungarian Government of their right to intervene in the proceedings in view of the applicant’s nationality (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court) and the absence on their part of any indication that they wished to intervene;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated in private on 22 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The proceedings at issue
1. The case concerns the quashing of a judgment in criminal proceedings by upholding an allegedly time-barred appeal, while the ensuing proceedings resulted in the increase of the applicant’s sentence and confiscation of his property. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2. On 9 September 2014 the applicant attempted to enter the Republic of Moldova, driving a car. For border control, he presented his passport issued by the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and a car registration certificate issued by the Republic of Senegal indicating him as owner. The border agents suspected that the passport and the car registration were forged, which was subsequently confirmed by an expert report on 12 September 2014. 3. The applicant was charged with forging official documents (Article 361 of the Criminal Code) and with attempted smuggling of the car (Article 248 of the Criminal Code), and his car was seized. 4. On 3 April 2015 the Hîncești District Court convicted the applicant of forgery, sentenced him to a fine of 10,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 516 euros (EUR)) and acquitted him of attempted smuggling, ordering the return of the car to the applicant. The judgment provided that it could be appealed against within fifteen days. 5. On 9 April 2015 the prosecutor lodged an appeal against the sentence of 3 April 2015 with the registry of the Chișinău Court of Appeal. 6. On 15 April 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal, by a letter, returned the appeal to the prosecutor, noting that under Article 405(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appeals were to be lodged with the first-instance court. 7. On 27 April 2015 the prosecutor lodged the same appeal with the Hîncești District Court. 8. On 11 April 2016 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s appeal, partially quashed the judgment of 3 April 2015, upheld the conviction for forgery and additionally convicted the applicant of attempted smuggling of the car. The court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and ordered the special confiscation of the car as proceeds of crime. 9. The applicant appealed against that decision arguing, inter alia, that the prosecutor’s appeal had been time-barred. On 12 July 2016 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, concluding that the prosecutor’s appeal had been lodged on 9 April 2015, within the statutory time-limit. The judgment was served on 9 August 2016. 10. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the first-instance judgment in the criminal proceedings against him was quashed after the courts upheld the prosecutor’s allegedly time-barred appeal, which resulted in the increase of his sentence and the confiscation of his property on appeal. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
11. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time of the proceedings, read as follows:
Article 402. Time-limit for lodging an appeal
“(1)  Unless the law provides otherwise, the time-limit for lodging an appeal is 15 days after the full judgment is delivered.”
Article 403. Reinstatement in the term for lodging an appeal
“(1  An appeal lodged after the expiry of the time-limit provided by law is considered to have been lodged within the time-limit if the court of appeal finds that the delay was caused by valid reasons, and the appeal was lodged not later than 15 days after the start of service of the sentence ....”
Article 405. Lodging an appeal
“...(4)  An appeal shall be filed with the court that issued the judgment being appealed against, accompanied with as many copies as there are participants in the proceedings. (5)  After the expiry of the time-limit established for lodging an appeal, the court that delivered the judgment shall send, within 5 days, to the court of appeal the case file together with the appeal and its copies, informing the parties thereof.”
Article 466. Judgment becoming final and its enforcement
“...(2)  The judgment shall become final:
1)  on the date of pronouncement, when it is not subject to appeal;
2)  on the expiry of the time-limit for lodging an appeal:
a)  when no appeal was lodged within the time-limit;”

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation