Published on 3 August 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 22912/19
Ion LEU
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 22 April 2019
communicated on 30 June 2026
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The application concerns allegedly unfair criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the lack of sufficient reasons provided by the domestic courts in their judgments and the shifting of the burden of proof, as a result of which the applicant was found guilty of a fatal road traffic accident and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and suspension of his driver’s licence for four years.
On 14 July 2012 the applicant was involved in a road traffic accident in which a motorcycle collided with his vehicle, resulting in the motorcycle rider’s death.
On 28 September 2012 the prosecuting authority discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant, concluding that there was a lack of constituent elements of a criminal offence. The decision was based on, inter alia, statements of the sole eyewitness, who had testified that he had been traveling at a speed of 100 kph, while the deceased rider had traveling at a speed of approximately 250 to 260 kph.
That decision was subsequently overruled by the investigating judge, and the criminal case was sent for trial.
On 13 June 2014 the first-instance court found the applicant guilty of a fatal road traffic accident and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and suspension of his driver’s licence for four years.
The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had not provided sufficient reasons for his conviction, in essence relying on the very same evidence that had previously justified the discontinuance of the proceedings. He also pointed out that the sole eyewitness had changed his testimony in court, claiming that he and the deceased rider had been traveling at a speed of approximatively 100 kph.
The appellate court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and newly found the applicant guilty suspending his sentence with a probationary term of five years.
On 19 May 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice, upon an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the decision of the appellate court and ordered a retrial of the case in appeal. It noted that the appellate court had failed to address, or had responded insufficiently, to the applicant’s main arguments.
Subsequent to that ruling, the case was retried two more times. In both sets of proceedings, the appellate court found the applicant guilty as charged. Its decisions relied, in essence, on the same reasoning that had previously been quashed by the Supreme Court of Justice.
In adopting decisions ordering yet another rehearing, the Supreme Court of Justice emphasised that the appellate court had failed to comply with the instructions previously given.
On 19 March 2018 the appellate court upheld the judgment of 13 June 2014.
On 18 September 2018 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant as inadmissible.
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for his conviction and that they violated the presumption of his innocence by shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the applicant.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were sufficient reasons given for the applicant’s conviction and did the court objectively examine the veracity and probative value of the evidence given in particular by the eye witness of the road traffic accident in issue (see Vetrenko v. Moldova, no. 36552/02, § 55, 18 May 2010; Ajdarić v. Croatia, no. 20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia, no. 13185/07, § 59, 8 November 2018)