THIRD SECTION

Application no. 62380/11 Vasile EFROS against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 5 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Vasile Efros , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1978 and lives currently in Romania . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Zama, a lawyer practising in Chișinău .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. The search and seizure orders concerning the applicant

3. On 1 July 2011 a criminal investigation was started in which the applicant was suspected of fraud in September 2008 by taking large sums of money (150,000 United States dollars in total) from three persons, including a lawyer, as payment for three plots of land, while he in fact did not own that land. On the same day the prosecutor issued a warrant for the search of the applicant ’ s car and apartment. In his decision he noted that according to “operative investigation materials” there were reasons to believe that money could be found in the applicant ’ s apartment, as well as other items the possession of which was illegal.

4. On 4 July 2011 the applicant ’ s car was searched and on the next day it was seized pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

5. On 7 July 2011 the applicant ’ s apartment was searched. The search record indicates that the following items were examined and seized, inter alia : several payment orders, documents concerning the opening of a bank account, money (700 Moldovan lei (MDL) and 3,000 United States dollars (USD)), two compact disks, and an iPad .

6 . On an unknown date the applicant challenged in court the lawfulness of the search and seizure warrants and of the resulting records made. On 14 July 2011 the Centru District Court found that the seizure of the applicant ’ s car on 4 July 2011 had been unlawful since, by the time of examining the complaint, the applicant had not been officially declared a suspect or accused in any criminal investigation. At the same time, it rejected the applicant ’ s complaint about the searches of his car and apartment, finding that they concerned him as a private person and not as a lawyer.

7. On 20 July 2011 the applicant was summoned to appear before the prosecutor two days later in order to be officially declared a suspect in the case. He informed the prosecutor that he was taking medical treatment. On 16 July 2011 he left for Ukraine , but returned the next day. He left again on 27 July 2011 to Romania and stayed there since.

2. The court order for the applicant ’ s detention pending trial

8. On 15 August 2011 a prosecutor from the Prosecutor General ’ s Office asked the Centru District Court to issue a warrant for the applicant ’ s detention pending trial. He submitted, inter alia , that the applicant had absconded by leaving the country, while aware of the criminal investigation in his regard.

9. On 19 August 2011 the Centru District Court rejected the request, finding that the prosecutor had not submitted any evidence that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the investigation. While he had indeed left the country, he informed the prosecution that he was taking medical treatment in Romania after a surgery, as proved by medical certificates; he promised to appear before the courts when summoned; there was no preventive measure in effect in respect of the applicant at the date when he left the country and thus he had not breached any restriction.

10. On 20 August 2011 the prosecution appealed. On 12 September 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal accepted the appeal and ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending trial for thirty days. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant had absconded, refusing to appear before the appellate court.

COMPLAINTS

11. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.

12. He also complains under Article 5 § 3 that the Court of Appeal did not give relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering his detention pending trial.

13. He finally complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the unlawful search of his car and apartment, which did not offer special guarantees to protect the lawyer-to-client privilege.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Does Article 5 of the Convention apply to the present case? If so, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1? In particular, was the warrant for the applicant ’ s arrest issued in the presence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the Court of Appeal give “relevant and sufficient reasons” for ordering the applicant ’ s detention pending trial?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the search of the applicant ’ s car and apartment in compliance with the requirements of that provision, notably in view of the special protection to be given to lawyer-client confidentiality (see Mancevschi v . Moldova , no. 33066/04, § 49, 7 October 2008 )?