SECOND SECTION
CASE OF NADDUR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 22939/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 December 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Naddur v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 22939/19) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 April 2019 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Issam Naddur, born in 1966 and living in Kiev (“the applicant”), who was represented by Mr I. Cernolev, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari;
the decision of the Ukrainian Government not to avail themselves of their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b) of the Rules of Court;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 22 November 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case mainly concerns the reversal of a judgment of a first instance court by which the applicant was acquitted and his conviction on appeal without hearing anew any witnesses or the victim. 2. The applicant was initially charged with fraud. It was alleged that he had been part of a group of persons who had defrauded a foreign businessperson of a large amount of money. 3. After hearing the victim, the applicant and numerous witnesses and examining all the available evidence, the first instance court acquitted the applicant. 4. The Chișinău Court of Appeal reversed the above judgment and found the applicant guilty as charged. In so doing, it did not hear anew any witnesses or the victim but merely read out their statements from the case-file. Contrary to the view expressed by the first instance court, the Court of Appeal considered that these statements confirmed the applicant’s guilt. 5. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law arguing, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had failed to conduct a fully-fledged hearing by hearing anew the witnesses as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure before reversing his acquittal. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the above judgment. 6. The applicant complained, in particular, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because the Court of Appeal had convicted him without hearing the witnesses anew.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation