Communicated on 8 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 16908/09 Ala LISOVOI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 March 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ala Lisovoi , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Chișinău .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

At the material time, the applicant was a student and an unpaid aid to a lawyer, T., helping him out with the translation of legal documents.

On 23 October 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against T. on charges of trading in influence. In particular, T. was charged that he had claimed 10,500 euros (“EUR”) from D. with the promise to pass that money to judges examining a criminal case against D. ’ s relative in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient punishment. The applicant had no procedural standing in those proceedings.

On 30 October 2008 the police asked for leave to search the applicant ’ s apartment . The decision read as follows:

“The criminal investigation against T. was initiated on 23 October 2008... In the course of the investigation it has been established that from March to September 2008, T. had extorted and received from D. in several instalments the amount of EUR 10,500 with the promise to give the money to judges who examined D. ’ s relative ’ s case, in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient punishment.

On 24 October 2008 T. was caught in flagrante receiving 3,800 US dollars (“USD”) from D. allegedly for influencing the prosecutor to not appeal the delivered judgment.

Taking into account that evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow a well-founded assumption that at [the applicant ’ s] home situated at [address], can be found EUR 10,500 received from D. and documents related to the above,

Decides

To order a search of [the applicant ’ s] residence situated at [address] with the aim of finding and taking EUR 10,500 received from D. and documents related to the criminal case.”

The same day, a prosecutor asked the Buiucani District Court to issue a warrant for the search of the applicant ’ s apartment. His request was a verbatim copy of the police decision. Still on the same day, the Buiucani District investigating judge issued a decision authorising the search. That decision read as follows:

“The present criminal proceedings were initiated on 23 October 2008 ... against T.

After hearing the prosecutor and examining the materials, and taking in consideration that those materials had been obtained in compliance with the law, the court finds that the request for the authorisation of the search is well founded and should be upheld.

Based on Articles 41, 125, 301, 305 and 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court:

Orders

1. To uphold the prosecutor ’ s request.

2. To authorise a search at [the applicant ’ s] residence, situated at [address].

3. The decision is final.”

On 10 December 2008 the police searched the applicant ’ s apartment in the presence of her elderly mother only. They did not find anything.

On 21 August 2009 the applicant sought access to the evidence which was presented to the judge for the authorisation of the search. On 3 September 2009 the Buiucani District investigating judge replied that the case file was available at the investigating authority and that access could be granted only pursuant to the law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search in her home was unlawful as not based on any relevant or sufficient reasons and that it was not in pursuit of a legitimate aim, considering the delay with which it had been carried out.

She also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that she had no remedy to challenge or to complain about the unlawful search.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home and private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention ( Mancevschi v. Moldova, no. 33066/04, §§ 47-50 , 7 October 2008 ) ?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?