CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MONIKA FOREJTOVÁ

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ

3. Mucha v. Slovakia

3.1 Questions of facts The complainant was a member of an organised criminal group operating in the territory of Slovakia. 75 He was therefore charged in 2002, together with nine other members of that group, with the offence of forming, participating in and supporting an organised criminal group and with several other violent offences. As eight of the accused were willing to enter into plea and sentence agreements (each in separate proceedings), it was decided to prosecute all the persons in separate proceedings. It should be noted that over a period of two years (2012 and 2013), plea and sentence agreements were successively concluded with eight accused persons, and these plea and sentence agreements were subsequently approved by the court, which always ruled with the same composition. The sentences by which the plea agreements were approved contained only a summary statement of reasons, which included a recapitulation of the proceedings, the applicable legal rules and the court’s finding that those rules had been complied with, that the plea agreements were not unfair and that the proposed sentences were appropriate. The crux of the problem, however, was that the plea and sentence agreements and the sentences approving them also referred to the complainant (identified by the initials of his name), specifically in that he had given instructions concerning the commission of various criminal activities, had taken part of the proceeds of the racketeering, and had imposed financial penalties on lower-ranking members of the organisation. In 2013, the complainant, who was the only one unwilling to enter into a plea bargain, was found guilty at trial of all the offences with which he was charged, and was sentenced to twenty-three years’ imprisonment. The sentencing court was composed of the same members as the court which had previously approved all eight plea and sentence agreements entered into with the complainant’s accomplices. In the main trial against the complainant, those accomplices testified as witnesses – although two of them refused to testify, their statements from the pre-trial proceedings were nevertheless read out to the court in a procedurally correct manner. In fact, the Slovak court considered the conviction of the complainant’s accomplices to be a “ a factual and homogenous part of the case under examination .” 76 In the grounds of its judgment, the court acknowledged that all the witness statements incriminating the complainant came mainly from the accomplices who had agreed to cooperate with the police, but in the court’s view this fact alone was not sufficient to call into question the evidence against the complainant. In the present case, that incriminating evidence was supported by other (albeit circumstantial) evidence – such as expert reports – and outweighed any witness statements made in the complainant’s favour. After unsuccessfully pursuing remedies before all the domestic courts, the complainant lodged an application with the ECtHR. In that application, he argued that he had been denied (i) a hearing by an impartial tribunal and (ii) the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article 6(1) and (2) of the ECHR.

75 Judgment of the ECtHR in Mucha v. Slovakia of 25 November 2021, application no. 63703/19, §§ 5–7, 47, 59. 76 Judgment of the ECtHR in Mucha v. Slovakia of 25 November 2021, application no. 63703/19, § 18.

154