AFFAIRE LILIAN ERHAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

• Judgment Date: 05 July 2022
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0705JUD002194716
• Date: 05 July 2022
• Application Number: 21947/16
• Court: Second Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Moldavia
• Applied Rules: 6;6+6-3-b;6-1;6-3;6-3-b

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF LILIAN ERHAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 21947/16)

JUDGMENT

Art 6 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (b) • Adequate facilities • Unfairness of criminal proceedings involving accusation of drink-driving, where applicant was placed in a position making it impossible for him to secure proof of his sobriety

STRASBOURG

5 July 2022

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Lilian Erhan v. the Republic of Moldova,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Egidijus Kūris,
Branko Lubarda,
Gilberto Felici,
Saadet Yüksel,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of drink-driving and in which he was not afforded adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.

THE FACTS

1. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

2. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Chișinău.

3. At the time of the events, he was a driver employed by a State organisation. On 3 September 2015, at 7 a.m., he was stopped in traffic by the police and given a breathalyser test. According to the results of the test, which was based on an analysis of the air which the applicant exhaled, he had been driving under the influence of alcohol. The applicant disagreed with the results of the test and wrote on the document, which was filled in by the police officer, “I disagree” (nu sunt de acord) in the space reserved for his signature, and then put his signature. The space on the document reserved for tested persons’ objections contained the words “no objections”, written apparently by the police officer. The document contained a pre‑printed note stating that, in the event that a person who had been tested disagreed with the result of the test, he or she had the right to challenge it by undergoing a blood test at the nearest medical facility, accompanied by a police officer, within two hours of the initial test. The note made reference to sections 13 and 14 of Government decision No. 296 (see paragraph 16 below).

4. According to the applicant, he verbally asked the police officer to accompany him to a hospital, but the police officer refused, arguing that he was busy. The Government contested the assertion that the applicant had asked to be accompanied to a hospital.

5. The police officer filled in three other documents: one concerned the findings of the breathalyser test and two concerned the removal of the applicant’s vehicle. In all three documents, in the spaces reserved for signatures, the applicant wrote that he did not agree, and signed.

6. Immediately after the incident the applicant went to a hospital alone, where he underwent a blood test at 8.58 a.m. The results of the blood test showed that he was sober.

7. On 18 November 2015 the Râșcani District Court found the applicant guilty of drink-driving and fined him 3,000 Moldovan lei (MDL – approximately 150 euros (EUR))....