Azi Curtea European\u0103 a Drepturilor Omului a pronun\u0163at o nou\u0103 decizie \u00een care Republica Moldova a fost g\u0103sit\u0103 vinovat\u0103 de violarea vie\u0163ii private a unuia dintre cet\u0103\u0163enii ei, Oleg Mancevschi.
\nPeti\u0163ionarul este avocat \u015fi a trebuit s\u0103 suporte acum c\u00ee\u0163iva ani perchezi\u0163ii nejustificate la oficiu \u015fi la domiciliu, suspectat fiind c\u0103 ar avea leg\u0103tur\u0103 cu o crim\u0103, de care era \u00eenvinuit unul dintre clien\u0163ii s\u0103i.
\nUlterior instan\u0163ele interne n-au putut demonstra c\u0103 e e vinovat de ceva, deci \u015fi perchezi\u0163iile au fost inutile, sumar argumentate juridic.
\nAcum contribuabilii trebuie s\u0103 pl\u0103teasc\u0103 mai mult de 4 000 (patru mii) de Euro unuia dintre noi, care n-a mai suportat f\u0103r\u0103delegile \u015fi a protestat.
\n—————————————<\/p>\n
Violation of Article 8<\/p>\n Mancevschi v. Moldova (no. 33066\/04)<\/p>\n The applicant, Oleg Mancevschi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chi\u015fin\u0103u. He is a lawyer.<\/p>\n The case concerned, in particular, the applicant\u2019s complaint about a search of his apartment and office in the context of a murder investigation against one of his clients. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).<\/p>\n The Court considered that the search of the applicant\u2019s apartment and office, in which he had kept his clients\u2019 case files, had interfered with his rights guaranteed under Article 8, and that the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. Considering whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court was struck, in particular, by the fact that the warrant had been formulated in extremely broad terms, which had given unfettered discretion to the investigator to search for anything he wanted in both the applicant\u2019s apartment and the law office. However, the applicant himself was not charged with, or suspected of, any criminal offence or unlawful activities and the Court noted the absence of any special safeguard to protect lawyer-client confidentiality. The Court held unanimously that the authorities had failed in their duty to give relevant and sufficient reasons for issuing the search warrants. It concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8. Mr Mancevschi was awarded EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,535 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)<\/em><\/p>\n