The ex-president of the Constitutional Court (CC) Alexandru Tănase leveled harsh criticism at the government after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of former prosecutor general Alexandr Stoianoglo. According to Alexandru Tănase, the law was intentionally violated in the case of Stoianoglo and the ECHR ascertained that the illegalities were committed deliberately. The former CC president noted that in a European state such a conviction by the ECHR would have led to dismissals, but this will not yet happen in Moldova, IPN reports.
On Tuesday, ex-prosecutor general Alexandr Stoianoglo announced that he won the case over one of the two applications he submitted to the ECHR. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial, namely of the right to challenge the Superior Council of Prosecutors’ decision of October 5, 2021 as a result of which he was suspended from post.
“This decision didn’t surprise anyone. The violations that were committed in the suspension of the ex-prosecutor general are absolutely evident. In its judgment, the Court held not only that Alexandr Stoianoglo was deprived of the right to a fair trial, but also that the authorities violated the essence of the right. Such a conclusion is seldom found in the ECHR judgments and, euphemistically speaking, it points to the deliberate character of the committed violations, which is very serious,” Alexandru Tănase stated in the program “Reflection Points” on Vocea Basarabiei station.
The ECHR obliged the Republic of Moldova to pay €3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the former prosecutor general. Alexandru Tănase said that even if the awarded damages are rather small, the committed violation is fully against the rule of law.
“This is very serious. In a normal society, dismissals and political scandals would have followed. Nothing will yet happen in Moldova. A press subject will be invented in several days to overshadow the developments related to the case of Stoianoglo and this case will no longer be discussed. Did they do something in the Republic of Moldova against those who generated convictions at the ECJR? Surely not. They hold power and nothing will follow,” stated the former CC president.
Alexandru Tănase also said that the scheme to suspend Stoianoglo from office was planned beforehand and abuses were committed purposely.
“There are persons who designed this miserable scheme by which they simply derided a person. This is not an accidental violation. It is not an element that can be blamed on unclear law. It is an absolutely deliberate act committed intentionally by persons who claim that they want to integrate into Europe, but one cannot integrate into Europe through abuse,” he stated.
On Tuesday, former prosecutor general Alexandr Stoianoglo also informed that the ECHR is to pronounce on one more complaint of his, which refers to his abusive arrest based on criminal cases fabricated for political reasons.
Also yesterday, the Ministry of Justice said that it took note of the judgment passed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Alexandr Stoianoglo. According to the institution, the judgment becomes irreversible three months after its publication. Subsequently, as part of the enforcement procedure, individual measures are to be carried out, including the payment of non-pecuniary damages to the plaintiff.
“Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the applicant complained to the Court that he did not have access to a court to challenge his suspension from office. Similarly, citing Article 13 of the Convention, he also complained about the lack of an effective remedy at the national level, through which he could challenge his suspension from office,” according to a press release from the Ministry. “Regarding the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court supported the Government’s argument, according to which the national legislation excluded, at that time, the possibility of contesting the suspension from office. The Court considered that the automatic suspension from office of the Prosecutor General, in the event of the initiation of a criminal case against him, cannot be justified by objective reasons determined by the interest of the state, in the absence of any form of judicial review.”
