6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Chişinău. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  The applicant worked as a deputy Head of the Botanica Police Section in Chişinău. On 13 November 2001 an investigation was initiated against him for unlawfully releasing two suspects from detention on remand. 9.  On 12 March 2002 the Chişinău Prosecutor's Office discontinued the investigation, finding that the charges had been based solely on the statements of two witnesses who had subsequently withdrawn them, declaring that they had made the statements as a result of ill-treatment by the police. Their statements were not supported by other evidence. On the same day the prosecutor informed the applicant of the decision by sending a letter to apartment no. 140, to where the applicant had recently moved. He sent a copy of his decision to the Chişinău head prosecutor “for information and control”. However, the applicant was dismissed from his position. 10.  The applicant initiated court proceedings seeking his reinstatement and the payment of salary arrears for the entire period of his involuntary absence from work. On 25 April 2002 the Court of Appeal accepted his claim. The court found that the criminal investigation against the applicant had not established his guilt and had been discontinued. It also found that the applicant had not prejudiced the proceedings against the released prisoners, one of whom was later found not to have committed any crime and the other re-arrested. His case is still pending. 11.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant was employed as an officer of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC). 12.  On 19 November 2004 he was allegedly summoned by his superiors and pressured into arresting Mr Sarban, the secretary of the Chişinău Municipality. On the same day the applicant arrested Mr Sarban. 13.  On 20 December 2004 a video recording of the applicant's statement in connection with Mr Sarban's arrest was broadcast on television. The applicant stated that the criminal investigation against Mr Sarban had been invented for political purposes and that there had been no lawful reason for initiating it (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 18, 4 October 2005). 14.  According to the applicant, on 21 December 2004 the Head of the Internal Security Department of the Prosecutor General's Office requested the Chişinău Prosecutor to forward the criminal case file against him. 15.  On 29 December 2004 the Prosecutor General re-opened the criminal investigation, finding that its discontinuation in March 2002 had been unlawful because it had not been based on a proper assessment of all the circumstances, that discrepancies in the evidence had not been entirely resolved and that the alleged facts had not been shown to be true. No order was given to open an investigation against the officer who had discontinued the investigation against the applicant. 16.  On 8 February 2005 the applicant was requested to appear as a suspect before a prosecutor at the Prosecutor General's Office. The relevant letter was sent to apartment no. 121, where the applicant had not lived since early 2002. On 14 February 2005 a prosecutor reported that it had been impossible to serve the summons on the applicant since nobody had been at home, so it had had to be pinned to the front door. On 13 April 2005 another summons was issued and on 14 April 2005 a similar report was drawn up, both in respect of apartment no. 121. 17.  On 18 April 2005 the prosecutor ordered that the applicant be brought before him, by force if necessary. On 25 April 2005 another report confirmed the absence of the applicant from apartment no. 121. 18.  On 25 April 2005 the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant. No mention was made of his failure to appear before him during the investigation. 19.  On 26 April 2005 the Râşcani District Court issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest and detention for 30 days, finding that he had been absconding from the investigation, was obstructing the establishment of the facts, could re-offend and was a wanted person. 20.  On 11 May 2005 the prosecutor sent the relevant documents to the Buiucani Police Section in order to have the applicant declared a wanted person. 21.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant was arrested in the street and was told of the warrant for his arrest issued on 26 April 2005. On 19 May 2005 he was brought before a judge who informed him of the decision of 26 April 2005. The applicant appealed, complaining that he had not been notified of the investigation and that it was therefore unjust to accuse him of absconding from it. He argued that he had a permanent residence, a job and a family with two children to support. He had no criminal record, and had he intended either to abscond from the investigation or to interfere with it, he could have done so earlier. He also underlined that the criminal investigation against him had been discontinued in 2002. He invoked Article 5 of the Convention and asked for his release pending trial, promising not to leave the city. 22.  On 24 May 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, finding that the lower court had “given proper reasons for the application of the preventive measure and [had] not commit[ed] any procedural violation”. 23.  On 30 May 2005 the prosecution formulated the final charges and on 1 June 2005 the case was submitted to the trial court. 24.  According to the Government, the trial court set the date for the first preliminary hearing for 24 June 2005. On that date the Prosecutor General designated another prosecutor to the case and the hearing was accordingly adjourned to 28 June 2005. Since this new prosecutor already had a case scheduled for that date there was another adjournment. On 4 July 2005 the prosecutor asked for the case to be transferred to another court, a request which was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice on an unknown date. A new date for the preliminary hearing was set for 26 August 2005 but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of witnesses. According to the applicant, he made habeas corpus requests at each hearing but none was examined because of the adjournments, and no formal decision was ever adopted. The Government have not denied this. 25.  On 30 August 2005 the applicant made a written request for the replacement of detention by a different preventive measure. He complained that the summons had been deliberately sent to the incorrect address and that the examination of his case was being delayed without reason. 26.  On 2 September 2005 the Botanica District Court rejected that request, principally because it found that the applicant had absconded from the criminal investigation. The court noted that the applicant had twice been served summonses at “... apartment no. 121, where, according to his personal file, he [is] registered” but had not appeared before the prosecutor and could not be brought by force as he was not found at the address. The court concluded that the grounds on which the detention on remand had been ordered remained valid as the applicant could abscond or interfere with the investigation. In rejecting the habeas corpus request the court decided that “the measure of detention on remand should be maintained”. 27.  On 3 November 2005 the applicant made another habeas corpus request, complaining of unnecessary delays in his case. The prosecutor partly agreed and asked the court to release the applicant and to place him under house arrest because no witnesses had been heard by that stage. On the same day, the Botanica District Court accepted the request and ordered the applicant's house arrest, prohibiting him from leaving his apartment, talking to prosecution witnesses or using the telephone. Based on the annex to his identity card stating his permanent address as apartment no. 140, the court ordered the applicant's house arrest at that address. On 15 December 2005 the applicant's house arrest was replaced by an undertaking not to leave the city. 28.  In December 2006 the applicant asked the trial court to annul the Prosecutor General's decision of 29 December 2004 to re-open the criminal investigation into his case and to discontinue the investigation. He argued that the re-opening had violated both his right not to be prosecuted twice for the same act and the principle of legal certainty, contrary to Articles 22 and 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
In its judgment of 13 December 2006 the Buiucani District Court cited Articles 22 and 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) and found that:
“...
Having examined all the evidence during the hearing, the court considers it necessary to discontinue the case due to the existence of circumstances which prevent the initiation of proceedings and the pursuance of criminal charges, namely the prohibition on repeated charges being brought against the same person for the same offence.
During the court hearing, it was established that the criminal proceedings in the case of Gorea Grigore were initiated on the basis of the criminal proceedings initiation order of 13.11.2001(vol I/fd I).
According to the order of the senior investigator at the Prosecution Office of the Town of Chisinau, I. Batalai, of 12.03.2002, the criminal case against Gorea Grigore was dropped due to lack of constitutive elements for the offence (vol II/71).
By order of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Moldova dated 29.12.2004, the order of 12.02.2002 which had discontinued the proceedings was cancelled and the criminal proceedings were resumed. The reason given was the illegality of the order which dismissed the trial, which ran counter to the evidence gathered during the investigation, the [fact that the] circumstances allowing such a dismissal did not exist and that the contradictions between the statements of Gorea G. and those of the witnesses have not been explained and that no procedures had been carried out in order to establish the identity of the persons who had inserted the information in the record registers and statistics cards (vol II/75).
The court finds that the above conclusion is contrary to the evidence in the file.
In the order of dismissal of the criminal case, dated 12 March 2002, the evidence is described in detail and analysed and a conclusion is drawn. In the order of annulment of 29 December 2004, however, there is no analysis of the circumstances and the reasons for rejecting the conclusion regarding the lack of constitutive elements of the offence. A simple statement pointing to the illegality of this procedural act cannot serve as a legal ground to resume legal proceedings.
Therefore, the court reaches the conclusion that the order of dismissal of the criminal trial of 12 March 2002 was determined on the basis of the evidence in the file and issued in accordance with current legislation.
Therefore, in accordance with Art 287 CPP, the conditions necessary for resuming the criminal proceedings are not met; [this situation also gives rise to] a case of a person being tried twice for the same offence, which excludes the resumption of the criminal investigation and the charging of Gorea Grigore.
...
In accordance with Art 391, Code of Penal Procedure, the court decides:
CESSATION OF