Published on 26 May 2026
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 18314/18
Mihail BUJEACU
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 6 April 2018
communicated on 6 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in administrative proceedings against him and the imposition of an allegedly heavier sentence than the one prescribed by law.
On 7 March 2017 a police officer fined the applicant 1,200 Moldovan lei (MDL – 56 euros (EUR), the maximum administrative fine provided for by law at the time) for having publicly insulted his neighbour. The applicant challenged that decision in court.
On 13 June 2017, in the absence of the applicant and without having heard the victim and a main witness, the Ciocana District Court upheld the administrative fine of 7 March 2017.
The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment, arguing that the alleged incident had not occurred in a public space: according to a minor-offence report, the incident took place at the victim’s place of residence. He also submitted that he had not had access to the material in the minor‑offence case file, had not been properly summoned by the court, and had been fined without the victim or the main witness having been heard. Moreover, the police officer had imposed the maximum fine provided for by law without any justification. The applicant additionally pointed out that the first‑instance court had failed to apply a more favourable law that had entered into force on 16 March 2017, under which the maximum fine for public insult was MDL 900 (EUR 42 at the time).
On 9 October 2017 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision, noting, inter alia, that although the Code of Administrative Offences did not define the concept of a public space, that definition was found in the Criminal Code and was applicable in the present case. The appellate court further noted that the applicant had been legally summoned, even though the notices of receipt had been returned unclaimed. It also held that the new law, relied on by the applicant, was not a more lenient one.
The applicant makes various complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the administrative proceedings against him: (a) the first-instance court failed to properly summon him to the hearings; (b) he did not have access to the material in the minor-offence case file; (c) the courts based their decisions on the statements made by the victim and the main witness to the police officer without having heard them in person; and (d) the courts did not provide sufficient reasons for their decisions to uphold the maximum fine provided for by law at the time, in the absence of any aggravating circumstances.
The applicant also complains under Article 7 of the Convention that the interpretation of the law by the courts (in respect of the concept of public space) was overly extensive and unfavourable, and that the fine imposed on him exceeded the amount prescribed by law.
 
 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  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:
(a) Was the applicant properly summoned to the hearings held before the Ciocana District Court (see Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, 1 February 2005)?
(b) Were the proceedings adversarial, and did the applicant have access to the material in the minor-offence case file (see Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, 27 November 2007)?
(c) Did the courts examine the evidence directly, notably by hearing the victim and the main witness in person (see Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2), no. 57575/14, 10 November 2020)?
(d) Did the courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions to uphold the maximum fine provided for by law at the time (see Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, ECHR 2010)?
2.  Has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Did the domestic courts’ allegedly extensive interpretation of the concept of “public space” amount to a breach of that provision (see Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, 21 October 2013)?
(b) Was the applicant given a penalty heavier than the one prescribed by the law in force at the relevant time (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, 17 September 2009)?
The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case file in the administrative proceedings against the applicant.