Communicated on 15 November 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 17873/15 Andrei BELOBROV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 9 April 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In his capacity as chief executive officer of a limited liability company, the applicant concluded a contract with a German company concerning the sale of a machine-tool for the price of EUR 400,000. According to the contract, the price was to be paid in several instalments, the last instalment being due after the shipment of the merchandise to the buyer. After having received two thirds of the price, a dispute concerning some defects of the respective machine-tool arose between the parties. The German counterpart requested a substantial discount but the applicant disagreed. As a result of the conflict, the applicant refused to ship the merchandise as provided for in the contract until the payment of the last instalment. Since the German counterpart refused to comply, the applicant sold the machine-tool to a third company. The German counterpart lodged a criminal complaint, arguing that it did not have money for the court fees in civil proceedings. Following criminal proceedings, the applicant was convicted for fraud and sentenced to three years ’ imprisonment. The courts also ordered the applicant to repay the German counterpart the money received in accordance with the contract.

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 that he was imprisoned for a debt. He also complains under Articles 5 and 6 that his detention and conviction were unlawful and unfair because it took place after the expiry of the five years ’ statute of limitations imposed by the Criminal Code.

QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of his inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, co ntrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision to detain the applicant lawful under domestic law concerning the statute of limitations ?

3. 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, was his conviction in accordance with the domestic law concerning the statute of limitations?