CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE POPOVIĆ

Although it can be argued that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the national courts ’ decisions placing him in house arrest (§§ 19-22 of the judgment), I voted along with the majority, finding a violation in this case. The reason for the vote cast is that I hold two and half months in detention pending trial (§ 33 of the judgment), without proper justification provided by the domestic courts, quite sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LÓPEZ GUERRA JOINED BY JUDGE CASADEVALL

I do not agree with the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the Chamber ’ s judgment. The applicant was subject to deprivation of liberty on two different but consecutive occasions: an initial period from 2 May to 20 July 2007, under a pretrial detention order, and a second period from 21 July 2007 to 12 March 2008, under house arrest. It should be noted that the applicant himself asked the Moldovan courts to place him under house arrest and, logically enough, the applicant did not therefore appeal against the house arrest order at any time. This fact raises a question as to whether the applicant actually exhausted the available remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, given that he failed to appeal against the order for house arrest that he himself had asked the Moldovan courts to impose. In any event, the total time in which he was in custody from 2 May 2007 to 12 March 2008 does not represent, in view of the circumstances of the present case, a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. When imposing the pre-trial custodial measures, the Moldovan courts clearly stated the reasons for them, which were neither unreasonable nor disproportionate, and which were based on their appreciation of the circumstances of the case and the state of the proceedings on each date. In that regard, the grounds for imposing the preventive measures included, inter alia , the risk of the applicant ’ s collusion with other defendants who were not in custody at that time (5 May 2007), the fact that relevant documents had yet to be seized (22 May 2007) and the risk of the applicant ’ s absconding to the “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria ” (29 June 2007). The fact that the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was changed to house arrest (at the applicant ’ s request, and unchallenged by him) suffices to demonstrate that the preventive measures ordered by the courts were not the result of stereotyped or mechanical reasoning, but rather were made in response to the applicant ’ s changing circumstances. In consequence, I do not believe that this Court should substitute its appreciation of those circumstances and the need to adopt preventive measures for the appreciation carried out by domestic courts, which had direct knowledge of the specific aspects of the case.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOTOC

(Translation)

The application of Article 5 § 3 in the Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova judgment is manifestly at variance with the Convention.

1. The applicant clearly did not exhaust domestic remedies, contrary to the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. He was detained for two and a half months (2 May to 20 July 2007), before being placed under house arrest for seven and a half months (21 July 2007 to 12 March 2008), but never challenged the latter measure. On the contrary, he himself asked to be placed under house arrest and never appealed to the authorities of the Republic of Moldova against that measure. To my mind, it is clear that this should have led the Court to declare the part of the application concerning the applicant ’ s house arrest inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

2. In the alternative, even leaving aside the argument of inadmissibility, the Court had no grounds to find a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The Moldovan authorities gave clear reasons for their decisions to detain the applicant, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 – which, moreover, was known to and cited by them. They referred to, and substantiated, the risk of interference with the course of justice. This risk indisputably existed, as the authorities demonstrated, first of all on account of the relationship between the applicant and his sons (the decision of May 2007), who were about to be charged in the same case as the applicant (although at the time they had yet to be charged), and then in relation to the applicant ’ s subordinates (June 2007). The national authorities provided factual and legal explanations as to how the applicant, a company manager and former politician implicated in corruption offences, could have influenced witnesses, and more broadly, the investigation of a highly complex offence of fraud. Moreover, the final case file ran to more than 100 volumes, indicating the complexity of the offence.

3. The judgment seems to me to set a negative precedent for the Moldovan authorities and to constitute an argument in favour of not investigating white-collar offences with all due care.