22126/15

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BAŞTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 22126/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 July 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Baştovoi v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Gilberto Felici, President, Diana Sârcu, Nicholas Emiliou, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.22126/15) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22April 2015 by a Moldovan national, Mr Andrei Baştovoi (“the applicant”), who was born in 1959, lives in Chișinău and was represented by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr O. Rotari; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.The present case concerns the publication by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of a press release, together with a video recording of the applicant’s arrest and the search of his home, suggesting that he was guilty of a crime before any court had the opportunity to examine the case on the merits. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 2 and Article 8 of the Convention. 2.The applicant is a former member of parliament and served in the first Parliament of the Republic of Moldova. 3.On 2 August 2011 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of attempted murder and, on the same day, his home was searched. Both the arrest and the search were recorded on video. 4.On 13 October 2011 the Ministry of Internal Affairs published on its website a press release, accompanied by the video recording of the arrest and the search. The press release stated: Attempt to organise a contract killing uncovered by the police “Employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have arrested several individuals suspected of plotting the assassination of staff members of SA ‘Ascom Group’. According to operational information obtained by officers of the Fraud Investigation Directorate, a former employee of SA ‘Ascom Group’, Baștovoi Andrei – suspected of embezzling significant sums of money from the accounts of the group’s companies located in Sudan, and later identified by the head of the company’s security service – planned, together with two other individuals, the assassination of the head of security and other company employees directly involved in uncovering the fraud. From the moment the information was received, employees of the Fraud Investigation Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, together with the Prosecutor General’s Office, undertook a series of operational investigative and procedural‑criminal measures, on the basis of which sufficient evidence was gathered to prove the guilt of the arrested individuals. A criminal case was opened under Article 26 and Article145 paragraph (2) letters (a), (b), (d), (g), (i), (k) and (p) of the Criminal Code. Following the questioning of one of the suspects, in the presence of a lawyer and a prosecutor, he fully admitted his actions and guilt, giving statements about his accomplices with whom he had coordinated the diabolical plan. As part of the plan, on 12 October 2011, the alleged killer was given an advance payment in foreign currency, with the remainder to be paid after the assassination of the indicated persons and the presentation of proof (photos and video footage). The suspects have been placed in detention for 72 hours in accordance with Article166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova.” 5.On 27 February 2014 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, seeking compensation for non‑pecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the breach of the presumption of innocence and an intrusion into his private life following the press release of 13 October 2011. 6.On 3 July 2014 the Chișinău District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding no breach of the presumption of innocence or of his right to respect for private life. It held that the press release had been issued for the purpose of informing the public of the alleged criminal activity and the suspect who had been arrested. 7.On 23 October 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the arguments of the first-instance court. 8.On 28 January 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible. 9.The criminal proceedings against the applicant, following several retrials, are still pending before the Chișinău Court of Appeal. 10.The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 and Article 8 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION 11.The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 and Article 8 of the Convention that the investigating authorities had damaged his reputation and interfered with his private life by publishing a press release mentioning his name and the video recording of his arrest and search of his home, in a manner intended to create the impression that he was guilty of a criminal offence before any court had found him guilty. 12.The Court observes that the applicant’s complaints under Article6§2 and Article8 concern essentially the same matter, that the press release issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs damaged the applicant’s presumption of innocence and reputation (compare McCann and Healy v.Portugal, no.57195/17, § 95, and Vovk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54353/20, §§75-77, 13January 2026). The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, not being bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a Government considers that these complaints are to be examined primarily under Article 6 §2 of the Convention (seeAlperin v.Ukraine, no. 41028/20, §58, 10 October 2024). Admissibility 13.The Government argued that the applicant had lost his victim status after the appellate court had found him guilty and had reduced his prison sentence as a form of redress for the breach of his rights under Article 6 §2 of the Convention in both the first and the second set of appeal proceedings, following the retrial of the case. They further submitted that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was in any event premature, given that the proceedings were still pending, and the applicant could yet be acquitted of all charges, in which case he would be able to make use of the compensatory remedy provided by Law no. 1545. 14.The applicant submitted that he retained victim status, given that the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. He further argued that his application to the Court could not be regarded as premature, as he had already exhausted the available civil remedy, which in his view could not be considered ineffective in the circumstances of his case. 15.The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (seeKurkut and Others v.Türkiye, nos. 58901/19 and 6 others, § 85, 25 June 2024). In the present case the outcome of the criminal proceedings which, in any event, are still pending before the appellate court, is immaterial to the complaints raised by the applicant. The Court finds that the applicant has not lost his victim status and dismisses the Government’s objection. 16.As to the Government’s objection concerning non‑exhaustion and the premature nature of the complaint, the Court notes that the applicant made use of a civil‑law remedy and raised, expressly or at least in substance, a complaint under Article 6 § 2 and Article 8 of the Convention, which the domestic courts examined on the merits (see paragraphs 5-8 above). The Court reiterates that when one remedy has been pursued, the use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required. Moreover, the Court has found on numerous occasions that a civil-law remedy could be an effective way of addressing a complaint about allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with raising the issue within the criminal proceedings against the applicant in that case (see Rytikov v.Ukraine, no.52855/19, §§ 42-46, 23May 2024; Kezerashvili v.Georgia, no. 11027/22, §§ 67-68, 5 December 2024; and Narbutas v.Lithuania, no. 14139/21, §§210-17, 19 December 2023). 17.Since the applicant has sufficiently raised the issues of the presumption of innocence and of the protection of private life in the civil proceedings he had initiated and that the domestic courts have ruled on the merits of his complaints, the Court considers that in Moldova a civil-law remedy may, in principle, be an effective way of addressing a complaint relating to allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with a criminal-law remedy. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies and the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection of non‑exhaustion. 18.The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article35 §3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 19.The applicant submitted that, by publishing a press release mentioning his name and the video recording of his arrest and the search of his home, the investigating authorities had created the impression that he was guilty of a criminal offence before any court had found him so. He argued that that disclosure had damaged his reputation and interfered with his private life, thereby infringing the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 §2 of the Convention. 20.In view of their arguments concerning the admissibility of the case (see paragraph 13 above), the Government did not make any submissions on the merits of the case. 21.The general principles concerning the presumption of innocence have been summarised inPopovici v. Moldova (nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, §78, 27November 2007) and more recently in Mamaladze v.Georgia (no.9487/19, §§ 105-09, 3 November 2022). Whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the statement in question was made. In any event, the opinions expressed cannot amount to declarations by a public official of the applicant’s guilt which would encourage the public to believe him or her guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. 22.The Court notes that the press release published on 13 October 2011 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on its website was issued in the context of a criminal investigation at its early stages and referred to the applicant by name and to two other unidentified suspects. The press release portrayed the applicant as the “uncovered” perpetrator of a criminal offence and although it referred to him as the “suspect” it also used language such as “sufficient evidence was gathered to prove the guilt” and that an identified suspect “had admitted his guilt” (see paragraph 4 above). The press release was also accompanied by the video recording of the applicant’s arrest and search of his home. 23.The Court emphasises the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been triedandfound guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Nešťák v. Slovakia, no.65559/01, §§88and89, 27February 2007, and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no.2947/06, § 166, 24 April 2008). In the present case, the statements were part of a press release and not of any procedural step in an investigation (unlike in Filat v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11657/16, §§ 42-51, 7December 2021). Although it was intended to inform the general public about the criminal proceedings in progress, its content clearly went beyond an informative statement that the applicant had been merely suspected of having committed a crime. The language employed suggested that there was sufficient evidence of his guilt, including an admission of guilt. Accompanying that text with video footage of a search in his home and his arrest reinforced the public perception that he was guilty of the uncovered offence in question before he had been tried and convicted by a court. 24.In these circumstances, having regard to the context of the particular circumstances in which the statement in question was made and the choice of words used by the public officials, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article6 § 2 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 25.The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage under Article 8 of the Convention. Additionally, the applicant claimed EUR 8,000 in respect of costs and expenses. His representative submitted a legal services contract and a detailed description of the services provided. 26.The Government argued that the claims in respect of non‑pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated and excessive, and that the claim for costs and expenses was unsubstantiated and disproportionate to the complexity of the present case. 27.Considering the violation found under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 28.In accordance with the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and the complexity of the case, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 July 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina KellerGilberto Felici Deputy RegistrarPresident