THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SOUROULLAS KAY AND ZANNETTOS v. CYPRUS
(Application no. 1618/18)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Applicants’ convictions for money laundering and extortion respectively based on the “most decisive” extent on testimony of accomplice, who was not prompted by any deal but was spared prosecution, not rendering trial unfair
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (d) • Rights of defence • Adequate facilities • Domestic courts’ refusal to give defence access to prosecution’s disk image not amounting to a breach
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
26 November 2024
 
FINAL
 
28/04/2025
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Souroullas Kay and Zannettos v. Cyprus,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Georgios A. Serghides,
 Darian Pavli,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 1618/18) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Cypriot nationals, Mr Gregoris Souroullas Kay and Mr Venizelos Zannettos (“the applicants”), on 3 January 2018;
the decision to give notice to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) of the applicants’ complaints about their inability to access material held by the prosecution and the use of accomplice testimony against them and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2024 and 15 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns firstly the question whether a criminal trial can be considered to be “fair” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention if it led to a conviction based to a decisive extent on the testimony of an accomplice who had been given immunity from prosecution.

Outcome for Article 6: no_violation