SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29352/09
Andrei CASTRAVEŢ and Oleg MUSIENCO
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 March 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Andrei Castraveţ and Mr Oleg Musienco, are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1946 and 1967 respectively and live in Chișinău. They were represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2005 the applicants were charged with embezzlement.
On 6 December 2006 the Botanica District Court acquitted the applicants. This judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 23 February 2007 and 11 December 2007 respectively and thus became final.
On 24 March 2008 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, seeking the rehearing of the case by the Court of Appeal. He argued that the courts had wrongly assessed evidence and that a “fundamental defect” occurred when the Supreme Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the absence of the applicants’ lawyer.
On 9 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment, quashed the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and of the Chișinău Court of Appeal, and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for a fresh examination on the merits.
On 23 December 2009 the Court of Appeal re-examined the case and acquitted the applicants again. Since nobody appealed, the judgment became final.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the annulment proceedings conducted after their final acquittal had constituted a violation of their right to a fair trial.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had not been fair. The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention read as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government submitted, inter alia, that after their repeated acquittal, the applicants lost their victim status.
The Court recalls that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention which, according to him, occurred in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (see Osmanov and Husseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003).
The Court notes that the proceedings against the applicants ended with their final acquittal by the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 23 December 2009. The Court considers that in these circumstances the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their right to a fair trial. It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 May 2020.
Hasan BakırcıArnfinn Bårdsen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy