The Court of Appeal has upheld the appeal filed by the reporting officer from Chișinău International Airport in the contravention case involving the leader of the Șansă (Chance) Party, affiliated with Ilan Shor, Alexei Lungu. As a result, the case will be retried by a different panel at the Chișinău Court, Buiucani office. Lungu was sanctioned after he allegedly filmed inside the airport and refused to comply with an order to stop the broadcast.

On June 12, 2024, at 11:30 a.m., Alexei Lungu appeared in a video claiming that he was not being allowed to cross the border:

“Once again, I’ve been stopped at the border crossing. This time we’re at the Sculeni border post. No explanation, no reason, and I was threatened with detention and the use of physical force by a young Border Police officer. We’re now waiting for the post commander to come and explain the reason why, both when entering and exiting the country, we are always stopped by the law enforcement authorities of the Republic of Moldova,” said Lungu.

The reporting officer considered that Lungu had violated “point 5, sub-point 4 of Annex No. 2 to Government Decision No. 297/2017” and issued a sanction.

The Șansă Party leader’s lawyer contested the sanction decision, arguing that his client’s guilt had not been proven.

By a decision issued on December 17, 2024, the Chișinău Court, Buiucani office, upheld the lawyer’s appeal. However, that ruling was challenged by the reporting officer from the Border Police at Chișinău International Airport.

On May 6, the Chișinău Court of Appeal ruled that the case must be retried in the same court, but by a different panel.

“It should be noted that the trial court did not comply with the requirements of Article 458 of the Contravention Code, which stipulates that when examining a contravention case, the court is obliged to determine the factual basis of the alleged offense, the existence of any circumstances that remove the contravention nature of the act, the guilt of the individual, as well as other relevant circumstances. In other words, the case must be examined from all angles, thoroughly and objectively, while ensuring the right to a fair trial and defense. In fact, the criminal panel found that the trial court unjustifiably concluded there had been violations that significantly affected the substance of the case due to the failure to timely examine the recusals submitted against the reporting officer and his superior,” the Court of Appeal decision states.