The European Court of Human Rights has found that a Romanian police officer was not given a fair trial.
The case concerned the fairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant who was on trial for influence peddling. He was initially acquitted but was then convicted in a final judgment by the Piteşti Court of Appeal.
One of the two judges on the bench at last instance had not, however, had taken evidence directly from all the witnesses. The Court found, in particular, that the Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 2 November 2016, had indeed made a fresh interpretation of witness statements that were decisive in the case, but that both of the judges on the bench had not heard the evidence from the witnesses directly.
The requirements of a fair trial had therefore been breached, the court found.
The Court noted the specific features of the case, which involved, first, appeal proceedings following the applicant’s acquittal at first instance – meaning that the Court of Appeal had been required to take measures of its own motion to hear evidence directly from the relevant witnesses and, second, a two-judge bench whose decision could only be adopted unanimously.
The case involved Nicolae-Richard Manolache, is a 56-year-old Romanian national from Câmpulung, southerm Romania. At the time of the trial, he was a police officer.
In 2015, Mr and Mrs H. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging that he had solicited and accepted 1,500 euros to have Mr H. employed as a driver, but that he had then broken his promise. Mrs H., who worked for the applicant’s wife, had
subsequently been dismissed.
Later that year, the public prosecutor’s office at Argeş County Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for influence peddling. Evidence was taken from witnesses including Mr and Mrs H., who also passed a polygraph test.
The applicant was committed for trial before the County Court. At the hearings, it was noted that Mr and Mrs H. could not give evidence because they were not in Romania and could not be brought before the court despite warrants to that effect. Evidence was, however, heard from Mr and Mrs R and from F.D. – “indirect” witnesses who had learned of the applicant’s alleged wrongdoing from Mr and Mrs H.
In a judgment of 4 December 2015, the County Court acquitted the applicant. It found that there was insufficient evidence against him since the only direct evidence was Mr and Mrs H.’s statements as complainants.
The public prosecutor’s office appealed against the acquittal to the Piteşti Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal held a hearing in June 2016, relying on the recently amended article the Criminal Procedure code, which specified the circumstances in which witnesses whose statements had led to an acquittal were required to give evidence again, it summoned Mr and Mrs H., Mr and Mrs R. and F.D. to appear.
At a hearing, the Court of Appeal, took evidence from Mr and Mrs H. and Mr and Mrs R.,
who reaffirmed their previous statements. At the next hearing on 2 November 2016 the Court of Appeal, F.D. also reaffirmed his original statement.
In a final judgment the same day, the Court of Appeal, quashed the appeal. After re-examining the merits of the case, it sentenced the applicant to a suspended term of three years’ imprisonment.
Unlike the County Court, the Court of Appeal found that Mr and Mrs H.’s statements were
corroborated by the other evidence and were not therefore the only evidence of guilt. The body of evidence as a whole thus confirmed the facts as presented in the prosecution’s submissions.
The Court of Appeal made reference to the detailed and consistent statements it had heard from other “indirect” witnesses, who confirmed Mr and Mrs H.’s allegations. It also referred to the interpretation of certain passages from the recorded telephone conversations between Mrs H. and the applicant’s wife, and to the report drawn up after Mr and Mrs H. had passed their polygraph tests.
