Communicated on 9 September 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 56580/09
Elena CHIMIRCIUC
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 15 October 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Elena Chimirciuc, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Chișinău. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Ionita, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 October 2008 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident. On the same day the traffic police concluded that the applicant had been responsible for the accident.
On 20 November 2008 a senior inspector of the traffic police issued a decision finding the applicant responsible for the breach of Article 124 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences resulting in a traffic accident, and imposed on the applicant an administrative fine of MDL 300 (EUR 23 at the time). The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 18 March 2009 the Buiucani District Court admitted the appeal and annulled the decision of the traffic police of 20 November 2008.
On 25 March 2009 the other driver involved in the traffic accident lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment.
On 15 April 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal heard the appeal on points of law, admitted it, and quashed the judgment of 18 March 2009, thus, upholding the administrative fine of 20 November 2008 imposed on the applicant.
On an unspecified date the applicant learned about the decision of 15 April 2009. Having consulted the case file, she learned about the existence of a letter of the Buiucani District Court, according to which a summons to appear at the Chișinău Court of Appeal’s hearing had been sent to her on 6 April 2009. She also came across to a transcript of a telephone conversation (telefonogramă) dated 14 April 2009, signed by a court clerk, according to which the applicant had been called in the afternoon of that day in order to be notified about the upcoming court hearing scheduled for the following day. According to the notes made by the court clerk in that transcript, the applicant allegedly stated that she had been aware of the appellate court’s hearing and intended to attend it.
Under the domestic law in force, the applicant was not able to challenge the decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 15 April 2009.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings by which her guilt was determined have not been fair because they took place in her absence and she was not informed about them.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant properly summoned to the hearing held on 15 April 2009 before the Chișinău Court of Appeal?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy