Suspended prosecutor general Alexandr Stoianoglo through his lawyers submitted two applications to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because the national courts of law violated a number of his rights.
In a news conference at IPN, one of his lawyers Victor Munteanu said the first application refers to the violation of his client’s right to free movement and about the arbitrariness of the procedure for taking legal action.
A number of complaints were filed at national level about Alexandr Stoianoglo. On October 5, Stoianoglo was to present a report to the Superior Council of Prosecutors. In accordance with the procedure, the SCP was to pronounce on the proposal to take or not to take legal action and to decide whether the same prosecutor or another prosecutor will handle the case. In the case of Stoianoglo, a prosecutor who was empowered only to examine the complaint filed initially took legal action, explained Victor Munteanu.
The second application submitted to the ECHR refers to the fact that Alexandr Stoianoglo, by the SCP’s decision, was suspended from the post of prosecutor general on October 5. A set of procedures in the national courts followed and Alexandr Stoianoglo there complained that he was suspended from the post of prosecutor general unjustifiably. The Chisinau Appeals Court and the Supreme Court of Justice didn’t even want to examine the essence of the case. In the initial application, it was indicated that the suspension from post and the taking of legal action were based on political criteria.
The lawyers asked that the two applications filed to the ECHR should be connected and examined as a matter of urgency.
Victor Munteanu said the suspension of Stoianoglo from the post of prosecutor general and the starting of criminal cases against him were abusive. Amendments to the law on the prosecutions service that were evidently political in character were swiftly made, during the vacation, so as to suspend him from post. The Venice Commission criticized the hurry in which the legislative amendments were adopted and questioned the necessity of suspending Stoianoglo from post.
According to the lawyer, Alexandr Stoianoglo continues to be abusively deprived of particular rights even if the court transferred him from house arrest under judicial control. The court imposed on him absurd restrictions that are not stipulated by the law. For example, he was banned from going to the prosecution bodies, even if he is investigated, from communicating with the press and from taking part in public debates.
