CASE OF LISOVAIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

At the material time, the applicant was a student and was undertaking an unpaid internship at a law firm.

On 23 October 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against T., a lawyer with whom the applicant worked, on charges of trading in influence. In particular, T. was accused of receiving 10,500 euros (EUR) from D. to pass on to the judges examining a criminal case against a relative of D.’s in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence. The applicant had no procedural standing in those proceedings.

On 30 October 2008 the police lodged with an investigating judge a request for a warrant to search the applicant’s apartment. The request was granted; the decision to issue the warrant read as follows: “The criminal investigation against T. was initiated on 23 October 2008 ... In the course of the investigation it has been established that from March until September 2008, T. extorted and received from D. in several instalments the amount of EUR 10,500, [to be given to] the judges who examined D.’s relative’s case, in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence. On 24 October 2008 T. was caught in flagrante receiving 3,800 US dollars (USD) from D., allegedly for influencing the prosecutor not to appeal against the [subsequent] judgment [acquitting the accused]. The evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow the well-founded assumption that at [the applicant’s] home, situated at [address], can be found EUR 10,500 received from D. and relevant documents, Decides To order a search of [the applicant’s] residence, situated at [address], with the aim of finding and seizing EUR 10,500 received from D. and documents concerning the criminal case.”

On the same day, a prosecutor lodged a request with the Buiucani District Court for a warrant to be issued for the search of the applicant’s apartment. His request took the form of a verbatim copy of the police decision. Also on the same day the Buiucani district investigating judge issued a decision authorising the search. The decision read as follows: “The present criminal proceedings were initiated on 23 October 2008 ... against T. After hearing the prosecutor and examining the material, and taking in consideration the fact that that material had been obtained in [a manner] in compliance with the law, the court finds that the request for the authorisation of the search is well founded and should be upheld. On the basis of Articles 41, 125, 301, 305 and 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court: ... 1. Grants the prosecutor’s request. 2. Authorises a search of [the applicant’s] residence, situated at [address]. 3. [Declares that] the decision is final.”

On 10 December 2008 the police searched the applicant’s apartment in the presence of her elderly mother [but not the applicant]. They did not find anything.

On 21 August 2009 the applicant lodged a request for access to the evidence which had been presented to the judge to justify the search. On 3 September 2009 the Buiucani district investigating judge replied that the case file was held at the [premises of] the investigating authority and that access could only be granted pursuant to the law.

It appears from the material in the case file that the criminal proceedings against T. ended with the latter’s acquittal.