Published on 29 September 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 30464/18
Nicolae DISCANT
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 21 June 2018
communicated on 10 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the fairness of court proceedings against the applicant for an alleged traffic offence.
The applicant was fined for having a radar detector installed on the inside of the windshield of his vehicle. He challenged the police officer’s report and the imposed sanction in court, arguing lack of evidence, a violation of the presumption of innocence, and procedural irregularities in the drafting of the report. By a judgment of 15 February 2018, the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded, ruling that the reporting officer had had the authority to identify the device without needing to prove its specific nature.
In his subsequent appeal on points of law before the Chișinău Court of Appeal, the applicant argued that the first-instance court’s judgment had relied on the assumptions of the reporting officer, who had classified the device in the applicant’s vehicle as a radar detector without any objective evidence. By a final decision of 29 March 2018, the appellate court dismissed the appeal as unfounded, however citing the circumstances of another case that the applicant had brought against the domestic authorities, in which he had been successful before the first-instance court.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to ensure a fair examination of his case.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the Chișinău Court of Appeal’s final decision of 29 March 2018 in breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96 and 2 others, § 41, ECHR 2002-VII; Maresti v. Croatia, no. 55759/07, § 33, 25 June 2009; Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 29, 12 July 2016)?