CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2003

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 58 November 2003 Nikitin v. Russia (dec.) - 50178/99 Decision 13.11.2003 [Section II] Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Right not to be tried or punished twice Supervisory review of a final acquittal: admissible The applicant, a former navy officer, undertook work for a Norwegian non-governmental organisation to work on a report on the Russian Northern Fleet and Sources of Radioactive Contamination. In October 1995, the Security Services instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of treason through espionage for having disclosed information on accidents of Russian nuclear submarines. The Security Services appointed two groups of experts, one to examine whether the report contained official secrets, another to evaluate the damage caused by the disclosure. The trial commenced in the City Court in October 1998, but was shortly after remitted for further investigation. The court ordered an additional expert examination, but as a result of the prosecution's appeal, the extension of the investigation was only declared in March 1999. Despite the experts' conclusion that the report contained official secrets, the applicant was acquitted by the City Court in December 1999, as it found that the applicant had reason to believe that the information was merely of ecological relevance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, which thus acquired final force. Despite this, the Prosecutor General lodged a request for a supervisory review of the acquittal with the Presidium of the Supreme Court, which considered the case on the merits, but rejected the request. The applicant complains that the very possibility of challenging his acquittal, which had entered into force, violated his right to a fair hearing and his right not to be tried again in criminal proceedings. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 (fair trial) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.   © 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