Communicated on 3 February 2021
Published on 22 February 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 37760/18
Victor SALINSCHI
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 16 July 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a dispute between two cousins. According to a contract between them, the applicant was to sell to the buyer one half of a plot of land after finalising its privatisation and the buyer was to pay the agreed price in instalments. The privatisation process and the registration of the terrain took longer than initially planned and after almost the entire price was paid by the buyer, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the method of division of the plot and the splitting of the money spent for the privatisation and registration of the property. The buyer did not initiate any civil proceedings but lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, invoking an alleged fraud and arguing that after having received the price of the plot, the latter refused to carry out his part of the agreement. The applicant claimed that this was a civil dispute which was to be settled in the civil courts. Nevertheless, he was placed in detention pending trial and kept there for eighty-eight days in poor conditions of detention until he agreed to sign a friendly settlement agreement with the buyer concerning the completion of the transaction. He was released from detention shortly after signing the agreement.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 that he was imprisoned for a debt and that the buyer made use of criminal law instruments in order to achieve his goals in the civil law dispute between them. He also complains under Article 5 § 1 that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and under Article 5 § 3 that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering and prolonging his detention on remand.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of his failure to fulfil a contractual obligation, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?
2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention on remand based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence imputed to him (see Muşuc v. Moldova, no. 42440/06, §§ 29-34, 6 November 2007)?
3. Was the applicant’s detention on remand based on relevant and sufficient reasons as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 115-123, 5 July 2016)?
The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the casefile in the domestic proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy