CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 septembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 188 August-September 2015 Dorado Baúlde v. Spain (dec.) - 23486/12 Decision 1.9.2015 [Section III] Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 Right of appeal in criminal matters   Absence of full review of evidence and facts by Supreme Court hearing criminal appeal: inadmissible Facts – Following his conviction of drug-trafficking offences, the applicant brought a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court, alleging that he had not had a fair trial and also that the appeal procedure before the Supreme Court violated his right to have his sentence and conviction reviewed by a higher court as Articles 847-852 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence did not allow a full review of the evidence and facts. In a judgment of 12   April 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the scope of the appeal was in conformity with international standards since it allowed a control of the legality of the evidence and its “reasonable assessment” and a revision of the conviction and sentence. Law – Article 2 of Protocol No.7: The Court reiterated that the Contracting States dispose in principle of a wide margin of appreciation to determine how the right secured by Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention is to be exercised. Thus, the review by a higher court of a conviction or sentence may concern both points of fact and points of law or be confined solely to points of law. In several member States of the Council of Europe such a review is limited to questions of law or may require the person wishing to appeal to apply for leave to do so. Given the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the States in this sphere, there was no reason to depart from the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the appeal had afforded the applicant the right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal and that this sufficed for the appeal to be considered in conformity with international standards. In addition, the Supreme Court’s judgment had been subject to further review by the Constitutional Court, which had reinforced the applicant’s right to a judicial review. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes