Communicated on 4 June 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 13451/15
Tatiana TRISTAN
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 4 March 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of a crime with which she could allegedly no longer be charged after the relevant criminal law provision had been amended. It raises issues under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 6 and/or 7 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, could the applicant be convicted of the crime provided under Section 328(3)(b) of the Moldovan Criminal Code and was the notion of a “person with public dignity powers” (“persoană cu funcție de demnitate publică”) applied extensively to her detriment (see, for instance, S.W. v. United Kingdom, no. 20166/92, § 95, 22 November 1995 and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 138, ECHR 2008)? Did the law relied on to convict the applicant satisfy the “quality of the law” requirements of accessibility and foreseeability (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 140)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy