Information Note on the Court’s case-law 198

July 2016

Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova - 46182/08

Judgment 5.7.2016 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Decision of court of appeal to overturn applicant’s acquittal without hearing oral testimony from main prosecution witnesses: violation

Facts – In 2005 the applicant, a bank armoured-vehicle driver, was charged with violating traffic rules. He was acquitted by the first instance court on the grounds that the witness statements against him could not be considered reliable. However, he was later convicted by the court of appeal.

In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because, when overturning his acquittal, the court of appeal had failed to hear the witnesses whose testimony had been used to find him guilty, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Law – Article 6 § 1: The Court noted at the outset that the witness statements and the weight given to them had had a decisive impact on the determination of the case because, apart from them, there was no other evidence which could lead on its own to the applicant’s conviction.

The first-instance court acquitted the applicant because it did not trust the witnesses after hearing them in person. In re-examining the case, the court of appeal disagreed with the first-instance court as to the trustworthiness of the witness statements without ever hearing the witnesses. As a result it found the applicant guilty as charged. In doing so, the court of appeal breached the relevant legal provisions as well as their interpretation provided by the domestic case-law, which foresaw that, in order for a court of appeal to rule on the merits of a case, a fresh examination of the evidence was needed. Moreover, the court of appeal did not provide any reasons for not complying with the domestic law, nor did it explain why it had come to a conclusion different from that of the first-instance court. Lastly, having regard to what was at stake for the applicant, the issues to be determined by the court of appeal could not have been properly examined without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. Nothing in the case-file indicated that the applicant had waived his right to recall any of the witnesses other than the victim. Moreover, having been acquitted at first instance and being aware that for a conviction the appellate court had to re-assess directly the evidence in the file, the applicant had not had any particular reason to recall the witnesses.

The applicant’s conviction without the re-examination of any witnesses, after he had been acquitted by the first-instance court, had therefore violated the guarantees of a fair trial.

Conclusion : violation (six votes to one).

Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.

(See also Dan v. Moldova , 8999/07 , 5 July 2011)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes