THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 422/07
by Andrei COROI
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
	Josep Casadevall, President,
	Alvina Gyulumyan,
	Egbert Myjer,
	Ineta Ziemele,
	Luis López Guerra,
	Mihai Poalelungi,
	Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrei Coroi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1985 and lives in Izbiste. He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 February 2006 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident in his village. According to the police report and to the sketch of the accident scene drawn up by the police, he overtook a tractor with his horse-drawn carriage when negotiating a bend and had a head-on collision with a car. As a result, administrative proceedings were initiated against the applicant for violation of the traffic code.
A hearing took place before the Criuleni District Court on 25 May 2006 during which the applicant explicitly waived his right to be represented by a lawyer and expressed the intention to defend himself in person. In his pleadings before the court he confirmed the version of the facts as established by the police, but declined responsibility. According to the minutes of the hearing, the applicant declared that he had understood his procedural rights as explained to him by the judge and that he had not had any objections or requests. It does not appear that the applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes of the hearing.
The court also heard the other party involved in the accident and examined the report and the sketch of the scene of the accident prepared by the police as well as several written depositions given by witnesses to the police. It found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to pay an administrative fine of 300 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 20 euros (EUR) at the time). The court also ordered the applicant to pay damages of MDL 13,818 (approximately EUR 800 at the time) to the owner of the car involved in the accident.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) and submitted that he had not had the possibility to call defence witnesses and that the sketch of the accident had been drawn up in his absence. He requested that the case be returned for further investigation so that the sketch of the accident could be prepared with his participation and that of his witnesses.
On 15 June 2006, after an oral hearing with the participation of all the parties, a panel of three judges of the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law by a final judgment. The Court of Appeal’s judgment was very brief and only stated that after having heard the parties and having examined the materials of the case-file it came to the conclusion that the judgment of the first instance court should be maintained and the applicant’s appeal dismissed.

B.  Relevant domestic law
According to Article 282/7 of the Code of Administrative Offences in force until October 2008 the courts examining appeals on points of law in cases concerning administrative offences were not obliged to give reasons in their judgments but could only state the operative part.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings against him had been unfair.
2.  The applicant also complained under Article 7 of the Convention that his act did not constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time of the events because under the traffic code a horse-drawn carriage was not listed as vehicle which could be the subject of a road accident.
3.  The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, as a result of unfair criminal proceedings, he had lost a substantial amount of money.
THE LAW
1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not had the possibility to call witnesses; he had not been represented by a lawyer; the courts had failed to motivate their decisions and had failed to explain the amount of damages awarded to the victim of the accident. The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal.”
The Government disagreed with the applicant and submitted, inter alia, that Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head was not applicable to the proceedings in the present case and that, in any event, the proceedings were fair in all respects. In so far as the reasoning of the domestic judgments was concerned, the Government submitted that the first instance court’s judgment contained sufficient reasons while the Court of Appeal acted in accordance with the provisions of Article 282/7 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see above).
Since the application is in any event inadmissible, the Court does not consider it necessary to reach any conclusion as to the question of applicability of Article 6. In the examination of this part of the application it will assume that the proceedings were criminal for the purposes of Article 6 and that therefore Article 6 was applicable.
The Court notes in the first place that the applicant does not contest the accuracy of the minutes of the hearing of 25 May 2006. It appears clearly from those minutes that the applicant did not have any requests concerning the questioning of witnesses. In so far as the applicant’s contentions that he was not represented by a lawyer and that the amount of damages has not been sufficiently explained, it is noted that these issues have not been raised in his appeal. In view of the above, this part of the complaint must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, §§ 50-51, 27 November 2007; Ž. v. Latvia, no. 14755/03, § 96, 24 January 2008).
In so far as the decision of the Court of Appeal is concerned, the Court recalls that according to its case-law the domestic courts are required by Article 6 § 1 to give reasons for their judgments (see, for example, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303‑A). However, courts are not required to give a detailed answer to every argument and the extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. The reasons for a decision may be also implied from the circumstances in some cases. Where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010).
In the present case it is true that the decision of the Court of Appeal was very brief and did no more than upholding the first instance judgment. However, having regard to the fact that the merits of the case had been duly examined by the Criuleni District Court and that its decision was satisfactorily reasoned, and taking into account the nature of the applicant’s reasons for appeal, the Court does not consider that the rejection of the appeal on points of law without detailed reasoning infringed the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court considers that the complaint concerning the lack of motivation of the Court of Appeal’s decision is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2.  In so far as the rest of the complaints are concerned, the applicant invited the Court, in his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case of 31 March 2010, to leave them without examination.
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
Accordingly it should be struck out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the complaint under Article 6 inadmissible;

Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
	Marialena Tsirli	Josep Casadevall	Deputy Registrar	President