SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MELEGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 40427/18)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
18 January 2022
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Melega v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Branko Lubarda, President,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 40427/18) 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 16 August 2018 by a Moldovan national, Mr Vitalie Melega, born in 1983 and living in Călărași (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr V. Zamă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari;
the parties’ observations;
 
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the reversal of a judgment of a first instance court by which the applicant was acquitted and his conviction on appeal without examining anew any evidence or hearing witnesses. 2. The applicant was accused of influence paddling (trafic de influiență). However, he was acquitted at first instance on the basis, inter alia, of several witness statements. 3. The Chișinău Court of Appeal reversed the above judgment and found the applicant guilty as charged. In so doing, it did not hear anew all the witnesses but merely read out their statements from the case-file. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law arguing inter alia that in reversing his acquittal, the Court of Appeal had failed to conduct a fully-fledged hearing and had not heard anew all witnesses as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and changed the solution given by the Court of Appeal in the case by removing the finding of the aggravated form of the offence and by reducing the amount of the fine applied to the applicant.

Outcome for Article 6: violation