he Convention
and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention
30. The applicant alleged a violation of the guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 of the Convention
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
"1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case."
A. The parties' submissions
31. The applicant claimed that he had been tried and convicted twice for the same criminal offence because he had had to return to prison after the first set of supervisory-review proceedings amending the charges against him, although he regarded his sentence as having been served in full. He also considered that the manner in which the courts had dealt with his case was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. He alleged that he had lodged a request for supervisory review because he expected the supervisory instance to establish that the judgment against him had been unlawful and acquit him of all charges. He could not have foreseen that it might entail detrimental consequences for himself, such as aggravation of the charge or extension of the sentence. He considered that the criminal proceedings, taken overall, had been conducted with gross unfairness and numerous procedural irregularities.
32. The Government contested the applicant's allegations. 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 might affect the outcome of the case. They claimed that the supervisory review in the present case fell within the scope of that provision. They pointed out that both sets of supervisory review were called for on the grounds of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings which were detrimental to the applicant's rights and which could affect the outcome of the case. They further submitted that the resulting judicial decision - the judgment of 30 August 2000 - had remedied the serious defects in both previous sets of proceedings and restored the applicant's fundamental rights. Moreover, it had reduced the applicant's sentence and apparently satisfied the applicant because he had lodged no appeal against it. They stated that any violation that had taken place in the criminal proceedings against him had been remedied by the subsequent quashing of the erroneous judgments.
B. The Court's assessment
33. The Court has previously examined cases raising 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 v. Russia, No. 58079/00, 27 July 2006; 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 e
> 1 2 3 ... 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
