Decision of the ECHR of 02 May 2017 on the case "Vasiliciuc v. Republic of Moldova" (application No. 15944/11).
In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Republic of Moldova.
The case successfully examined a complaint about the authorities' avoidance of reasonable attempts to inform the applicant about the criminal proceedings against her and the need for her appearance. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant, a citizen of the Republic of Moldova residing in Greece, was stopped and questioned at the airport in Chisinau because of the jewelry she was carrying. After her return to Greece, a criminal case was opened against her in connection with the attempted smuggling of jewelry, and she was sent a summons to her address in the Republic of Moldova. On June 19, 2009, the Moldovan district court decided to incarcerate the applicant on the grounds that she did not appear at the summons of the investigating authorities. The applicant learned of the detention and filed an application for his abolition, citing the fact that she did not know about the criminal proceedings against her. Her application and complaint were rejected. In 2011, the applicant was detained in Greece on the basis of an international arrest warrant and detained for extradition for 23 days.
In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that the detention order issued against her by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
ISSUES OF LAW
(a) Admissibility of the complaint. The applicant was under the control and authority of the Greek authorities during her detention in Greece and until her release from custody. The deprivation of liberty was based on the measures taken by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova, namely the international arrest warrant issued by Interpol upon their request. In the context of the extradition procedure, the requested State should be able to presume the validity of legal documents issued by the requesting State on the basis of which the deprivation of liberty is requested. In addition, the country requesting extradition must ensure the legality of the request for detention and extradition from the perspective of domestic law, as well as the Convention. Accordingly, the act appealed by the applicant, which was initiated by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova on the basis of its legislation and executed by the Greek authorities in accordance with its international obligations, must be imputed to the authorities of the Republic of Moldova, despite the fact that it was committed in Greece.
(b) Merits. The applicant's deprivation of liberty in Greece was a direct result of the detention order of 19 June 2009, in the absence of which the deprivation of liberty in Greece would have been impossible. This fact was directly noted by the Greek courts in their decisions on the extradition of the applicant. The applicant's detention in Greece, although formally carried out for the purpose of extradition, was part of the mechanism used by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to enforce the detention order outside the borders of Moldova.
The reason for the decision on the applicant's detention, cited by the courts of the Republic of Moldova, was the fact that the applicant did not appear before the investigating authorities on their summons. However, the applicant legally left the country at a time when no criminal proceedings had been taken against her. The authorities opened a criminal case against her after she went abroad. She provided the authorities with her contact details in Greece, but despite this, prosecutors continued to send out summons on her Moldovan address. Prosecutors made no attempt to verify information that she was in Greece and did not make reasonable attempts to inform her about the criminal proceedings and the need for appearance.
The authorities chose a very formal approach to the problem of the applicant's call and, after her absence, hastily concluded that she was hiding. The refusal of the courts of the Republic of Moldova to verify the applicant's arguments about improper notification and the possibility of her appearance provided the Court with the assurance that the applicant's detention could not be considered necessary and deprived of her will.
The violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.