Communicated on 28 June 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 4797/15
Galina ENACHI
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 6 January 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Galina Enachi, is a Moldovan and a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Chișinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the material time, the applicant was a licensed auditor. On 21 July 2011 criminal proceedings were initiated against her on fifteen counts of fraud. She was suspected that between April and July 2011 she had defrauded several private companies by concluding, on behalf of a private company G., contracts to purchase goods from those companies and by G. failing to pay for those goods. She was arrested by the police on the same day.
On 22 July 2011 the prosecutor applied to the Rîșcani District Court for a warrant for the applicant’s detention in custody. The same day the Rîșcani District Court issued a warrant for thirty days’ detention. The court cited the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which entitled the court to remand a person on the grounds of the risk of absconding, of interfering with the investigation and of re-offending. The text of the decision referred on several occasions to another name than that of the applicant. On 3 August 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision finding that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence that the applicant had committed a crime.
On 18 August 2011 the Rîșcani District Court extended the applicant’s detention by thirty days for the same reasons as it had done earlier. The applicant appealed. On 25 August 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed that decision and released the applicant under judicial control. The court found that the prosecutor had failed to present any evidence of the risk of absconding or of interfering with the investigation.
On 17 November 2011 the Rîșcani District Court issued a detention order for thirty days’ detention, arguing that the applicant had absconded while under judicial control. The court relied on police reports drawn up by officers T. and V., according to which the applicant was not to be found at the address she had given in the appellate hearing of 25 August 2011.
The applicant appealed and argued, inter alia, that on 9 and 20 September 2011 she had informed officer E. in writing about her change of address and that she had sought medical treatment for a leg trauma, confirmed by a medical report. She subsequently argued that the police officers V. and T. were not credible because she had lodged a criminal complaint against them for ill-treatment during her arrest. She also argued that her detention did not rely on a reasonable suspicion that she had defrauded those companies because she was not the owner or the administrator of G., but merely its auditor, and that she had never concluded any such contracts. In any event, she noted that G.’s failure to pay for the goods was not imputable to her and that the debt on those contracts had not become mature yet, considering that the goods had been purchased several months or days before criminal proceedings had been initiated.
On 30 November 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision relying on the risk of absconding. The court did not reply to the applicant’s contentions.
The applicant’s detention was extended repeatedly every thirty days on the same reasons as before until 23 March 2012, when the case was committed for trial. Thereafter her detention was extended every ninety or sixty days until 19 May 2014. On several occasions the courts referred to the personal details of other persons or argued that the applicant’s detention was justified by her lack of permanent income.
The applicant appealed against each extension of detention, arguing that she did not abscond, that there was no risk of her interfering with the investigation and that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a crime. In her appeals against the decisions of 24 September 2012, 26 December 2012, and 18 December 2013 and in her habeas corpus requests from 21 March 2013, 21 June 2013 and 20 September 2013, the applicant also complained that her detention exceeded the legal time-limit of twelve months provided by Article 25 (4) of the Constitution.
On 19 May 2014 the Rîșcani District Court rejected the prosecutor’s request to extend the applicant’s detention and ordered her placement under house arrest for ninety days. The text of the decision referred to the personal details of another person. On 9 June 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
On 8 August 2014 the Rîșcani District Court extended the applicant’s house arrest by ninety days. The applicant appealed and argued, inter alia, that the time-limit for her detention exceeded the legal time-limit provided by Article 25 (4) of the Constitution. On 8 September 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal released the applicant under judicial control.
The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that her detention beyond the time-limit of twelve months prescribed by Article 25 (4) of the Constitution was unlawful.
The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts’ decisions did not give relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending her detention and that her detention was prolonged beyond a “reasonable time” without any reason.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty lawful under domestic law (see Savca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17963/08, § 53, 15 March 2016)?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s detention between 17 November 2011 and 8 September 2014 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts’ decisions extending the applicant’s detention founded on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and were the proceedings conducted with a “special diligence” (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001)?
The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s detention on remand and under house arrest.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy