POPOVICI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr Petru Popovici, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. 2. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol. 3. In 2000 and 2001 the applicant and a group of ten other persons were accused of being members of a criminal gang and of having committed numerous offences, including ten murders and thirteen attempted murders. The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on 12 November 2001. 4. On 7 October 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of all the charges for lack of evidence and ordered his release from custody. 5. On 1 March 2004, in the applicant’s absence, a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Justice examined an appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General’s Office against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, quashed the judgment, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 6. The applicant complained to the Court and, on 27 November 2007, the Court found, inter alia, that his right to a fair trial had been breached on the grounds that the Supreme Court of Justice had convicted him without making a direct assessment of evidence given by the applicant in person (see Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, § 72, 27 November 2007). 7. As a result of the Court’s judgment, the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of 1 March 2004 seeking its quashing and a fresh examination of the appeal against the judgment of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 7 October 2003. The Prosecutor General’s Office did not object. 8. On 30 June 2008 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice examined the extraordinary appeal lodged by the applicant, quashed both the judgment of 1 March 2004 and that of the Court of Appeal of 7 October 2003 and ordered a fresh examination of the case. The Supreme Court also ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for an undefined period of time without there being a request by the Prosecutor General’s Office. 9. After the communication of the case to the Government, the Court became aware of the fact that on 17 November 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice had examined an extraordinary appeal lodged by the applicant against its judgment of 30 June 2008 and had upheld it. The Supreme Court considered unlawful the quashing in that judgment of the decision of the Court of Appeal of 7 October 2003 and the decision to remand the applicant in custody, and reversed those parts of the judgment.