003-8097670-11328311

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 277 (2024)   26.11.2024   Accomplice testimony in property-corruption case did not compromise trial   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Souroullas Kay and Zannettos v. Cyprus (application   no. 1618/18) the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been:   by 5 votes to 2, no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, and   by 5 votes to 2, no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for   preparation of defence)   The case concerned Mr Souroullas’s conviction for money laundering and Mr Zannettos’s for   extortion in connection with a land deal. A key part of the evidence had been the testimony of N.L.,   a property entrepreneur and owner of ALKI Larnaca, a football club. N.L. had been given immunity   from prosecution after he had given statements implicating, among others, the applicants.   The Court found in particular that the trial had not been compromised by the inclusion of N.L.’s   evidence as the national courts had been cautious in treating that evidence, and there had been   other corroboration available too.   As regards the applicants’ demand to examine the prosecution’s copy of N.L’s hard disks to prove   collusion, the Court was satisfied that the national courts had heard the argument on the matter and   had denied the request with reasoned decisions. The applicants’ arguments in this connection were   entirely hypothetical.   Principal facts   The applicants, Gregoris Souroullas Kay and Venizelos Zannettos, are Cypriot nationals who were   born in 1966 and 1947 respectively and live in Larnaca (Cyprus).   In 2013 an inquiry was set up into a suspicious land deal in Dromolaxia, near Larnaca Airport. The   authorities suspected that the original owner, a Turkish Cypriot, had had no right to sell the land,   and worried that the pension fund of CYTA, a State-owned telecommunications provider, had made   a bad investment.   A police investigation followed, leading to a search of the offices of the private company that had   bought the land and the home of its director, N.L. He was a property entrepreneur and chairman of   ALKI Larnaca, a financially troubled football club associated with the AKEL political party. The police   seized computer hard drives during the searches. N.L. was charged with bribery on 10 September   2013.   Two days later, N.L. contacted investigators and stated he would cooperate and be a prosecution   witness. In the following two months he made four written statements overall to the effect that   bribes had been given as part of a conspiracy to sell the land to CYTA’s pension fund at an inflated   price; he admitted his own guilt; he implicated seven other people and one company, including the   applicants; he stated that Mr Souroullas had laundered bribe money paid to a representative of the   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   CYTA trade union; and that Mr Zannettos, the financial director of the AKEL party, had threatened to   block the deal unless N.L. had paid off personal loans taken out by former executives of ALKI FC in   order to shore up the club’s finances.   The applicants, along with the other accused, were arrested. Mr Souroullas was charged with   conspiracy to commit extortion, extortion, and money laundering, and Mr Zannettos with extortion.   On the investigator’s recommendation, the Attorney General decided not to prosecute N.L.   They were committed for trial before the Larnaca Assize Court and N.L. was granted immunity from   prosecution.   In the course of the trial, N.L. gave testimony over five full days. The prosecution presented evidence   found on N.L.’s hard drives linked to a company, Polleson Holdings Ltd. (of who Mr Souroullas was   the sole authorised signatory), which supported the accusation that the conspirators had prepared   documents that would cover for the bribe and that Mr Souroullas had therefore been aware of the   illicit origin of the money that he had parked in Polleson’s account. The applicants’ counsel asked the   court to be given access to prosecution’s disk image (a forensic copy of a hard disk), a request that   was refused.   On 22 December 2014 the Larnaca Assize Court convicted Mr Souroullas of money laundering and   Mr Zannettos of extortion. It sentenced them to six and a half and three and a half years’   imprisonment, respectively. It accepted N.L.’s testimony as he had “answered with exemplary   consistency and detail ... with the demeanour of someone who was clearly telling the truth”.   The Supreme Court subsequently reviewed the conviction. It did not overturn the Assize Court’s   findings as regards the evidence given by N.L. It held that the refusal of access to the prosecution’s   disk image had not disadvantaged the defence since the defence had had its own copy of the image,   which contained all the documents used in the trial   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial/right to adequate time and facilities for   preparation of defence) of the European Convention, the applicants complained in particular of their   convictions having been based solely on the testimony of an accomplice who had been granted   immunity, and of lack of access to data regarding the prosecution’s disk image to establish collusion   between the prosecution and N.L.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 January 2018.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Pere Pastor Vilanova (), President,   Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   Peeter Roosma (Estonia),   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated that there are no rules on how evidence should be assessed under Article 6 § 1.   It could intervene only where a national court had assessed evidence arbitrarily or manifestly   unreasonably. There was no specific prohibition on a court’s relying on incriminating testimony given   by an accomplice. However, as this could risk making a trial unfair, the Court assessed fairness of the   criminal proceedings as a whole, including such testimony.   In this case, the applicants had failed to show that there had been any deal between N.L. and the   prosecution. The trial court had understood and taken account of the issues with using such   testimony. The applicants had known the identity of N.L. and the arrangements made, and had been   able to cross-examine N.L. The Court noted the Cypriot courts’ findings that there had been other   supporting evidence which had contributed to the convictions. It also noted that the Assize Court   examined carefully and explained precisely why it accepted N.L.’s testimony. Furthermore the   Supreme Court had subsequently reviewed the conviction.   The trial had not been compromised by N.L.’s testimony, and so therefore the Court had found no   violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 3 (b) taken with Article 6 § 1   A failure to disclose to the defence material evidence which could have enabled the accused to   exonerate him or herself or have his or her sentence reduced would constitute a violation of the   right guaranteed in Article 6 of the Convention. However, there had to be reasons for requests for   material, which could be assessed by the national courts.   The Court ruled that the data that had been sought by the applicants at trial – access to the   prosecution’s disk image – constituted in principle evidence. It noted that the national courts had   dismissed the applicants’ request with reasoned decisions, having examined the applicants’   arguments. The contents of the hard drive had been available to the defence. The Court found that   obtaining the prosecution’s disk image would not in itself have been of any assistance to the defence   and that, in any event, the applicants’ arguments in this connection were entirely hypothetical.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (b).   Separate opinions   Judges Serghides and Zünd expressed a joint dissenting opinion. Judge Serghides also expressed a   solo dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4