Published on 18 September 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 53320/19 Donaldas SKUPSKAS against Germany lodged on 2 October 2019 communicated on 29 August 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Lithuanian national. In October 2014 he drove a minivan from Lithuania to Esslingen, Germany, where his passengers carried out a robbery at a jewellery shop. M., one of the perpetrators, was subsequently arrested in Lithuania. After being offered the prospect of immunity in exchange for his cooperation, M. stated that he had received his instructions for the robbery from the applicant.

The applicant’s trial was held before the Stuttgart Regional Court. M. was summoned as a witness but refused to appear. Instead, the court heard the police officers who had questioned M. Furthermore, the court rejected the applicant’s request to hear C., another of the perpetrators, as a witness. Relying particularly on M.’s pre-trial statement, on 18 January 2017 the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to six years of prison. His appeals were unsuccessful.

The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (d) of the Convention regarding the fact that he had been unable to examine M. and the lack of counterbalancing factors to compensate for this handicap, in particular with regard to the fact that M. had been offered advantages in return for his testimony and, furthermore, regarding the Regional Court’s refusal to summon C. as a witness.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant’s right to a fair trial, including a right to examine or have examined witnesses against him, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, been breached in that neither the applicant nor his counsel had been given an opportunity, at any stage of the proceedings, to examine M.?

In particular, having regard to the principles established by the Court notably in its judgment in the case of Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015),

(a) Was there a good reason for admitting as evidence the pre-trial statements made by M. during police interrogation and subsequently presented by the police officers at the trial?

(b) Was the applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive or significant extent on the evidence provided by M.?

(c) Have there been sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties caused to the defence as a result of the fact that it had been unable to question M.? In particular, what measures were taken and which additional counterbalancing measures could have been taken by the domestic prosecution authorities and by the domestic courts to safeguard the applicant’s defence rights?

2. Has the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (d) been breached in that the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to summon C. as a witness (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia ([GC], no. 36658/05, 18 December 2018)?