THIRD SECTION

Application no. 56875/11 Radu MANOLI against Moldova lodged on 17 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Radu Manoli , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1984 and lives in Boşcana . He was rep resented before the Court by Mr G. Ulianovschi , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

At the time of the events the applicant was a police officer. In December 2006 he and another police officer were charged with the offence of ill ­ treating of two suspected persons.

On 21 May 2009 the Buiucani District Court, after hearing the applicant, the victims and the witnesses, acquitted the applicant. In particular, the court found that the victim whom the applicant was accused of ill-treating, did not in effect intend to complain about his ill-treatment and that his intention was merely to be a witness in the proceedings. The victim stated that he did not remember being ill-treated personally because of his advanced state of intoxication. Moreover, the victim in question had not had any signs of ill-treatment on his body after release. The court therefore found that the charges against the applicant were ill-founded. On the other hand, the court convicted the other accused police officer, who was found guilty of ill-treating the other victim. The Prosecutor ’ s Office appealed against the judgment.

On 18 January 2010 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor ’ s Office and reversed the judgement of the first instance court. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years ’ imprisonment. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not hear anew the victims and the witnesses but merely gave to them a different interpretation.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing, inter alia , that his conviction had been contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the Court of Appeal had not examined the materials of the case and had not heard him, the victim and the witnesses in person.

On 25 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law, finding, inter alia , that a new hearing of the victims and witnesses by the Court of Appeal was not necessary in the circumstances of the case. One of the members of the panel of judges wrote a dissenting opinion expressing the view that a new hearing of the victims and witnesses was imperative for purposes of fairness of the proceedings.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The explanatory judgment of the Plena ry Supreme Court of Justice No. 22 of 12 December 2005, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, after an acquittal judgment pronounced by a first-instance court, the appeal court cannot order the conviction for the first time without hearing the accused and without the direct administration of the evidence.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court convicted him without hearing the victims and the witnesses.

QUESTION

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07 , 5 July 2011) ?