Published on 8 September 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 8579/18
Ghenadie BOȚOC
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 1 February 2018
communicated on 20 August 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant and alleged entrapment into committing an offence. He and other individuals were accused of drug trafficking, as part of an organized criminal group.
In particular, a certain N.C. reported to the police that he had been approached by S.Z. (one of the accused persons in the case) and had been offered to participate in a drug business. Since then, N.C. cooperated with the investigative body in the case. At some point during the investigation N.C. was contacted by S.Z. and offered to purchase some drugs. Being directed by the police, N.C. agreed to it and carried out the transaction as planned, using special marked banknotes given by the police. Later, the police found these banknotes at the applicant’s premises, during searches.
The applicant was acquitted at first instance on the grounds of, inter alia, multiple procedural errors. He was subsequently found guilty by the Court of Appeal which gave a new interpretation to legal provisions on which it based its decision without examining the evidence directly. It also appears that the main witness (N.C.), who had testified before the police, was not heard in person either at trial or in the appeal proceedings.
By a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 16 August 2017 the applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected as inadmissible.
The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings were not fair notably because of authorities’ failure to properly verify whether he was the victim of police entrapment. He also claims that the Court of Appeal convicted him after having given a new interpretation to the legal provisions applied in the case without examining the evidence directly and without ensuring adversarial proceedings. Finally, under Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was not informed in time about the change of the accusation against him, which was, moreover, not made by the prosecution, but apparently by the court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant victim of “entrapment” into committing a criminal offence (see Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of a failure to ensure adversarial proceedings, notably the higher court’s failure to directly examine the evidence before reversing the applicant’s acquittal (see Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, 27 November 2007)?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) of the Convention on account of the alleged reliance by the court on new accusations not made by the prosecution (see Mattoccia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, ECHR 2000-IX)?