CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mai 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 97 May 2007 Saiz Oceja v. Spain (dec.) - 74182/01 Decision 2.5.2007 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Pre-delivery leak and publication in the press of a Supreme Court judgment convicting the applicants: inadmissible   The applicants were police officers. Criminal charges were brought against them for holding a person against his will, conspiracy and misappropriation of public funds (see decision Vera Fernandez-Huidobro v . Spain , no. 74181/01, above). They were brought before the criminal section of the Supreme Court. The court’s deliberations and decision were published in the press before the court announced its guilty verdict. Concerning nullity based on the time-limit for prosecution, the court considered that the running of time had been interrupted by the opening of the criminal proceedings. The applicants filed an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court questioning the fairness of the trial and the impartiality of the court because of the publications in the press. They also complained of the rejection of their preliminary objection concerning the prescription of the offences of which they stood accused. The amparo appeal was declared admissible, but rejected. Inadmissible under Article   6(1) – Even if one of the Supreme Court judges had been the source of the leak, the court could not be said to have lacked impartiality unless it could be proved that the leak had influenced or altered the opinions of its members. As the application stood, the Court held that this was not a case of “trial by press” likely to have affected the court’s impartiality. Although the leaks were regrettable, the Supreme Court had already reached its verdict and determined the corresponding sentences. There was nothing in the case file to indicate that the Supreme Court judges might have been influenced by the content of the information that had appeared in the press prior to the official announcement of the judgment on the merits: manifestly ill-founded . Inadmissible under Article   7 – There was no evidence in this case of an inappropriate change in the case-law of the Supreme Court concerning limitation periods. This interpretation of the dies a quo for fixing the time-limit relating to the offences at issue in this case had indeed permitted the applicants’ indictment and subsequent conviction, and had therefore been to their disadvantage, contrary to their expectations. However, this had not violated their rights under Article   7, the Supreme Court being the court of last instance when it came to interpreting the law in non-administrative proceedings: 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