CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 février 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. 94 February 2007 Perlala v. Greece - 17721/04 Judgment 22.2.2007 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Court of Cassation ruling that a ground of appeal based on the right to a fair trial was inadmissible: violation   Facts : During a demonstration against the education system, fighting broke out when a group of hooded individuals threw Molotov cocktails at police officers, one of whom sustained serious burns. The applicant claimed that he had been 600 metres away from the scene of the incident and that his head had not been covered. He was arrested on suspicion of throwing Molotov cocktails and claimed to have been struck and insulted by police officers. The applicant was taken into police custody and criminal proceedings were instituted against him. The investigating judge ordered his detention pending trial and he was subsequently granted conditional release. The assize court found the applicant guilty by a majority and sentenced him to a suspended term of eight years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. The appeal court heard evidence from the police officer who had arrested him, who told the court that he believed the applicant to be the perpetrator. Evidence was also heard from other prosecution witnesses. After one of the videotapes of the incident was shown, an expert appointed by the applicant said he was certain the applicant could not have been the person who threw the object at the police officer. Counsel for the applicant requested that the other videotapes be shown and invited the court to appoint another expert. The court refused on the ground that the measures in question would not shed any further light on the matter. The court then heard evidence from several defence witnesses. The applicant again pleaded not guilty. The court of appeal, by a majority, sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment, suspended. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He contended that the court of appeal had based its decision solely on the witness statement given by the police officer who had arrested him, and had committed errors in the taking of evidence. He further complained of a violation of his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the Convention. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal, noting that the appeal court had given sufficient reasons for the impugned judgment and that there had been no breach of the procedural guarantees contained in domestic law. It declared the ground of appeal based on Article 6(1) of the Convention inadmissible on the ground that an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial did not constitute a ground of appeal in its own right. Law : The applicant complained that he had been denied the opportunity to defend himself and prove his innocence, on account in particular of the erroneous interpretation of the witness statements and other evidence by the appeal court and the ill-founded, hasty and unjustified manner in which the Court of Cassation had declared inadmissible the ground of appeal concerning the right to a fair trial. The Court’s task was to examine the applicant’s allegations and the conduct of the proceedings taken as a whole in order to ascertain whether he had been denied a fair trial. Under the Greek Constitution, the Convention formed an integral part of the Greek legal system and took precedence over any contrary provision of domestic law. The Court of Cassation had declared inadmissible the applicant’s ground of appeal based on a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, on the ground that Article 6 was not directly applicable in the instant case and that, for it to be taken into consideration, the applicant would have had to rely on it in conjunction with one of the grounds of appeal listed exhaustively in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court considered that such an interpretation, in preventing the applicant from having the Court of Cassation consider the conduct of the proceedings from the standpoint of Article 6, considerably undermined the protection of individuals’ rights before the highest domestic court. The fact that the Court of Cassation had refused to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 did not mean that its judgment did not constitute the final domestic decision in the instant case. The Court had consistently held that, in Greece, an appeal on points of law in criminal proceedings exhausted domestic remedies and therefore constituted the point at which the six‑month period started to run. These factors were sufficient basis for concluding that the Court of Cassation had denied the applicant’s right to a fair trial. Conclusion : violation (unanimously) Article 41 – EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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