THIRD SECTION
Application no. 17953/08
Vera PARENIUC
against Moldova
lodged on 11 March 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Vera Pareniuc, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Edinet. She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the material time the applicant was working as a tax inspector. On an unspecified date the applicant was accused of bribe taking. On 28 January 2005 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case against her stated in an interview to a newspaper that the applicant had accepted a bribe.
On 9 March 2005 the applicant was convicted for bribe taking and sentenced to a criminal fine of some 300 euros (EUR). In convicting the applicant the Edineţ District Court found that a person named V.Z. had visited her in her office and had placed money in the pocket of her coat which was hanging on a coat rack in exchange for services concerning a till. The applicant appealed against this judgment and argued, inter alia, that she had been a victim of an entrapment. The prosecutor also appealed claiming that the punishment was too mild.
On 20 September 2006 the Bălţi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and acquitted her on the ground that, inter alia, there was no evidence to support the allegation that she had been aware about the money being placed in the pocket of her coat and that V.Z. had acted as an agent provocateur entrapping the applicant. The court also heard an audio recording concerning the encounter between the applicant and V.Z. and found that the applicant had clearly refused to accept money notwithstanding V.Z.’s insistence.
On 16 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the prosecutor’s appeal on points of law and ordered the re-examination of the appeals against the judgment of 9 March 2005 by the Bălţi Court of Appeal.
On 21 March 2007 the Bălţi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 9 March 2005 and upheld the appeal lodged by the prosecutor. The court considered that the evidence in its possession indicated to the applicant’s guilt “even assuming that the applicant was entrapped by V.Z.”. The court increased the size of the fine to some EUR 1,200 and sentenced the applicant to a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The applicant was also banned from working for the Tax Authority for a period of three years.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and argued, inter alia, that V.Z. had been an agent provocateur and that she had been the victim of an entrapment.
On 12 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law without paying any attention to her claim about the entrapment.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she has been a victim of entrapment. She also complains that the court judgments were not sufficiently motivated and that the decision of the last Supreme Court of Justice was not publicly pronounced.
2.  The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that her right to be presumed innocent had been breached by the prosecutor in charge of the case who had stated in an interview that she had accepted a bribe.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular:
(a)  was the applicant the victim of “entrapment” and did the domestic courts properly deal with her claim in that respect (see, for instance, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008)?
(b)  did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for their judgments?