The non-examination of a substantive witness by the accused violates the fair trial
JUDGMENT
Valdhuter v. Romania 27-06-2017 (no. 70792/10)
SUMMARY
Examination of a witness by a defendant. The case concerned the applicant’s claim that he was not given the opportunity to challenge the examination of a witness whose testimony had been taken into account in his conviction. Romania’s conviction for violation of Article 6 (1) and (3) (d).
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 3 (d)
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ioan Florinel Valdhuter, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Baia Mare (Romania). The case concerned his allegation that he had not been allowed to question a witness whose statement had been taken into account in order to convict him.
In February 2000 Mr Valdhuter, who bought and sold second-hand car parts, was summoned by the police to make a statement on the subject of the purchase of three cars from a certain I.R. He was prosecuted for complicity in theft and accused of having knowingly purchased stolen cars. During the prosecution, I.R. was questioned by the authorities and admitted to having stolen cars further to “orders” from specific persons, one of them being Mr Valdhuter. Neither Mr Valdhuter nor his lawyer had attended I.R.’s interrogations.
In June 2000 the prosecution ordered I.R.’s committal on a charge of theft, and Mr Valdhuter’s committal on a charge of complicity in theft. In April 2004 the court decided to disjoin the part of the case concerning I.R. from that concerning Mr Valdhuter. In April 2007 Mr Valdhuter was given a three-year affirmative prison sentence. He appealed against that judgment on the grounds that the court had based his conviction on I.R.’s statements during the investigation, whereas the latter had gone back on his initial statement during the criminal proceedings conducted after the disjoinder of the cases. In June 2009 the county court partly set aside the judgment of the court of first instance and ordered a stay of execution of the sentence. Mr Valdhuter lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, which dismissed it. The Court of Appeal did not adjudicate on the lawfulness of I.R.’s statements.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to examine witnesses), the applicant complained that his right to a fair trial had not been respected because he had been unable to question witness I.R. even though the latter’s statements had been taken into account for his conviction. The applicant also complained of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,690 (costs and expenses)
