SECOND SECTION
CASE OF EȘANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 15230/18)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
31 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Eșanu v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 15230/18) 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 20 March 2018 by a Moldovan national, Mr Valentin Eșanu (“the applicant”), born in 1977 and living in Chișinău, who was represented by Mr S. Tighineanu, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision of 19 March 2019 to declare inadmissible the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the material conditions of detention and to adjourn the examination of the remainder of the applicant’s complaints;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible a further complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (concerning excessive delay of judicial review);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 10 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the applicant’s deprivation of liberty pending trial on several charges for a total of twenty-two months in the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons, ordered and extended allegedly in breach of the principle of equality of arms. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2. Specifically, in 2014 a criminal investigation into money laundering was initiated in respect of the applicant and the company, S., which he owned and administered. It was not until 15 August 2017 that the applicant was arrested and charged with tax evasion and money laundering committed from 2014 to August 2017. In particular, it was alleged that S. had evaded payment of taxes by increasing its liabilities through recording on its books inexistent purchases of scrap metal or purchases at higher prices. The money obtained from tax evasion had subsequently been used to buy cars and real estate, which was alleged to constitute money laundering. 3. On 15 August 2017 the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, citing the risks of influencing witnesses, of tampering with evidence, of absconding and of continuing criminal activity. The measure was extended on four occasions, despite the applicant’s argument that he had not absconded or interfered with the investigation since its initiation in 2014. 4. On 20 November 2017 a part of the case concerning the period from 2014 to 30 June 2017 was disjoined for practical reasons, noting that the crime had been committed from 2014 to 15 August 2017 but that the unpaid tax had been calculated until 30 June 2017 and that this part of the case was ready for trial. On 1 December 2017 it was remitted to court for trial, relying mainly on the Tax Control Decision of 8 November 2017, which had concluded that S. had failed to pay 5,697,759 Moldovan lei (MDL) in various taxes and social security contributions. 5. On 4 January 2018 the Chișinău District Court ordered the applicant’s house arrest, relying on the same risks as the previous decisions, while noting that the prosecutor had failed to substantiate his request for the extension of the applicant’s detention. 6. On 5 January 2018 an ambulance took the applicant from his home to a private clinic where he remained until 12 January 2018. Meanwhile, on 10 January 2018, the prosecutor requested that the applicant be remanded in prison for failure to comply with house arrest restrictions. Specifically, the prosecutor relied on the written reports of two officers, according to which the applicant had not informed the police that he was in hospital and had been in contact with persons “involved in the criminal case” during his stay in hospital, either by telephone or by visits. In court the applicant disputed the statements of the two officers and asked to hear them in person. He also noted that he had unrestricted opportunities to exchange with other co-defendants during court sessions. His request was ignored and on 12 January 2018 the applicant was remanded in prison. The court relied on the applicant’s alleged failure to comply with the conditions of the house arrest as grounds for further detention in prison. The measure was extended on seven occasions until 15 August 2018. 7. On 5 August 2018 another criminal case was initiated in respect of the applicant on charges of trespassing and arbitrariness, for having unlawfully installed a fence. The applicant was arrested on these charges on 15 August 2018 at the gate of the prison, on his release from the twelve months’ detention handed down for the first set of proceedings. On 12 September 2018 the Chișinău District Court rejected the prosecutor’s request to extend the detention and released the applicant under judicial control. The court noted that the prosecutor had not provided any concrete evidence as to the four grounds which could have justified the applicant’s deprivation of liberty. 8. On 14 September 2018, as the applicant was at the gate of the prison to be released from detention in the second set of proceedings, he was again arrested on charges of money laundering and tax evasion, allegedly committed from January to August 2017, in the case-file which had remained after the disjoinder of 20 November 2017 from the first criminal case against him (see paragraph 4 above). On 15 September 2018 the Chișinău District Court decided to remand the applicant in custody and cited the same grounds as before (see paragraph 3 above). The measure was extended on numerous occasions until June 2019, when the applicant was released. 9. On 31 July 2020 the Chișinău Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of charges of trespassing and arbitrariness. The judgment became final in the absence of an appeal. 10. On 4 June 2020 the Chișinău District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant on charges of money laundering and tax evasion committed from 2014 to June 2017. The court relied on Section 275 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that criminal proceedings shall be discontinued when there are “other circumstances provided by law which exclude the criminal investigation”. It noted that the Tax Control Decision of 8 November 2017 had been annulled by a final court judgment in parallel civil proceedings and concluded that in such circumstances the criminal investigation had been initiated in breach of legal provisions. The judgment became final in the absence of an appeal.

Outcome for Article 5: violation