CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 janvier 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 49 January 2003 Korellis v. Cyprus - 54528/00 Judgment 7.1.2003 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Interlocutory proceedings: Article 6 inapplicable Facts : The applicant was charged with rape. The Assize Court granted the defence’s request for forensic examinations to be carried out. The Attorney General applied for judicial review of that decision by means of a writ of certiorari. The application was granted by judge A. of the Supreme Court and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the plenary court, which included judge G., who had been previously involved in the case as a senior member of the prosecution service. The applicant was subsequently convicted. He appealed against conviction, the first ground of appeal concerning judge G.’s participation. He further lodged a plea for the certiorari judgment of the Supreme Court to be vacated, which was a precondition to the examination of that ground of appeal. The petition was dismissed by the plenary of the Supreme Court, including judge A., an objection to his participation having been rejected. The first ground of appeal was consequently withdrawn and the applicant’s other grounds of appeal were rejected. Law : Article 6 § 1 – Government’s preliminary objection: The issue could not be decided without referring to the trial proceedings as a whole and the objection was therefore joined to the merits. The Court had found in its decision on admissibility that although the certiorari proceedings, which had taken place before the trial, had not determined a criminal charge against the applicant, they were closely interwoven with the proceedings before the Assize Court. It had considered that the question of the forensic examination was crucial for the outcome of the trial, as it might have disclosed evidence having an important bearing on the applicant’s guilt or innocence. However, since then the Court had examined a further application lodged by the applicant, concerning the fairness of his trial, and had come to the conclusion that the evidence at issue and the related interlocutory proceedings had not ultimately played a decisive role in the determination of the criminal charge. The applicant had failed to show the relevance of the forensic examination and indeed it had emerged that such an examination would have been ineffective. In view of the conclusion in relation to the fairness of the trial, the complaint relating to the interlocutory proceedings did not give rise to any issue under Article 6. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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