tried and punished twice for the same criminal offence and invoked in particular the detrimental consequences entailed by his retrial following the supervisory review. He complained that the substantial increase in his prison term after his earlier release, when he had regarded it as executed, had deprived him of the benefit of the Amnesty Act and had been disproportionate and unfair. He pointed out that the grounds for quashing the final judgment by the supervisory instance, notably the excessively lenient sentence imposed in accordance with Article 64 of the Criminal Code, were the same as those that had been raised before, and examined by, the appellate court. The applicant therefore maintained that the proceedings as a whole had been unfair and had run counter to the principle of legal certainty.
25. The Government accepted the applicant's version of events but denied that the criminal proceedings at issue had resulted in a violation of the domestic law or of the Convention principles. They relied on Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7, which expressly permitted the reopening of a criminal case if there had been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings that could affect the outcome of the case. They claimed that the supervisory review in the present case fell within the scope of that provision. They contended, further, that the retrial, as well as the increase in the sentence, had been absolutely necessary in circumstances where a serious violent crime, such as the one of which the applicant had been found guilty, had gone virtually unpunished. They relied on the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force and stated that the prosecutor's request for supervisory review had been filed within the prescribed time-limit and the retrial by the courts of two instances had afforded all guarantees of a fair trial.
B. The Court's assessment
26. The Court has previously examined cases raising similar complaints under the Convention in relation to the quashing of a final judicial decision (see Nikitin v. Russia, No. 50178/99, ECHR 2004-VIII; Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), No. 72776/01, 9 March 2006; Fadin, cited above; and Radchikov v. Russia, No. 65582/01, 24 May 2007). It reiterates that the mere possibility of reopening a criminal case is prima facie compatible with the Convention, including the guarantees of Article 6. However, the actual manner in which it is used must not impair the very essence of a fair trial. In other words, the power to reopen criminal proceedings must be exercised by the authorities so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the system of criminal justice (see Nikitin, cited above, §§ 54 - 61). In the specific context of supervisory review, the Convention requires that the authorities respect the binding nature of a final judicial decision and allow the resumption of criminal proceedings only if serious legitimate considerations outweigh the principle of legal certainty (see Bratyakin, cited above).
27. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the Amnesty Act was passed before the end of the first set of proceedings and the court could have taken it into account. However, the court considered it inapplicable and imposed an exceptionally short term of imprisonment intending that it be actually served in full. When an amnesty was eventually applied for, the prosecutor requested a full reassessment of the case calling for a sentence within the statutory limits. As a result of the rehearing granted, the applicant's punishment was increased by two years and four months compared with his original sentence and he could no longer benefit from an amnesty.
28. The Court notes that the grounds for the prosecutor's request for supervisory review and the courts' reasoning was limited
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 ... 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
