Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93
January 2007
Bujniţa v. Moldova - 36492/02
Judgment 16.1.2007 [Section IV]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Request for annulment by prosecutor resulting in quashing of applicant's acquittal without any new evidence: violation
Facts: The applicant was acquitted of rape by a district court. The prosecutor and the victim appealed. A regional court upheld their appeal and found the applicant guilty of rape. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation. By a final judgment the court of appeal upheld the applicant's appeal in cassation and quashed the judgment of the regional court. The Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court a request for annulment of the judgments of the district court and the court of appeal. He argued that those courts had unlawfully assessed the evidence and asked the Supreme Court to uphold the regional court's judgment. The Supreme Court upheld his request. The applicant complained that he did not have a fair hearing as a result of the quashing of his acquittal.
Law: The applicant complained about the quashing of the final judgment of the court of appeal following a request for annulment lodged by the Prosecutor General's Office. The Government maintained that this request had been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and that the applicant had enjoyed the necessary procedural safeguards during the request for annulment proceedings. The Court noted that the grounds for the re-opening of the proceedings were based neither on new facts nor on serious procedural defects, but rather on the disagreement of the Deputy Prosecutor General with the assessment of the facts and the classification of the applicant's actions by the lower instances. The latter had examined all the parties' statements and evidence and their original conclusions did not appear to have been manifestly unreasonable. The grounds for the request for annulment were insufficient to justify challenging the finality of the judgment and using this extraordinary remedy to that end. The Court considered therefore that the State authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy