CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA4EC0FBA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   804 27.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] Panjikidze and Others v. Georgia (application no 30323/02 )     UNFAIR TRIAL OF THREE MEN ACCUSED OF TAKING PART IN PLOT TO OVERTHROW THE INCUMBENT AUTHORITIES IN 1999   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each of the applicants with regard to whom a violation was found.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicants, Archil Panjikidze, Gujar Kurashvili and Kakhaber Kantaria (of the seven applicants, they were the only ones whose complaints were not manifestly inadmissible) are three Georgian nationals who live in Tbilisi.   In April 1999, on the basis of information from the counter-espionage service of the Ministry for State Security, the head of that Ministry’s investigation service instituted criminal proceedings against a group X, on the charge of preparing a plot to overthrow the incumbent authorities. The group in question had allegedly been lead by the former Minister of Security of the Georgian State and had been working towards the assassinations of the Head of the Georgian State, the President of the Georgian Parliament and the Georgian Ministers of Security, Defence and the Interior.   In the context of the subsequent investigation and after having been subjected to telephone tapping, in May 1999 the three applicants were arrested and charged; they were accused, among other things, of having taken part in preparing the plot and assassinations. On 30   December 1999, the preparatory investigation was completed and the applicants were subsequently committed for trial. By a judgment of 8 November 2001, the Criminal Bench of the Supreme Court, composed of one professional judge and two lay judges ( msajuli ), found Mr Panjikidze, Mr Kurashvili and Mr Kantaria guilty of high treason in the form of a plot against the constitutional order (Mr Kantaria was also convicted of the illegal purchase and handling of weapons) and sentenced each of them to three years’ imprisonment. On 25   January 2002 the Criminal Bench, sitting in a composition of three professional judges, upheld the judgment of 8 November 2001.   Prior to the abolition of the institution of lay judges on 25 March 2005, the lay judges at the Georgian Supreme Court were individuals from other professions who were invited to take part, alongside a professional judge, in examining criminal cases at first instance. The institution in question was a residue of the Soviet judicial system, in which lay judges acted as representatives of the people, whose participation in the implementation of justice they guaranteed.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1, Mr Panjikidze, Mr Kurashvili and Mr Kantaria alleged that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. Their main complaint was that the Criminal Bench of the Supreme Court which had tried them at first instance had not been a “tribunal established by law”, since it included two lay judges who were not legally competent to exercise the functions of a judge. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 July   2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Kristina Pardalos (San-Marino), judges ,   and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that, in line with the Convention and the principle of the rule of law, a tribunal must always be “established by law”. A body that had not been established in accordance with the intention of Parliament would necessarily lack the required legitimacy, in a democratic society, to examine the cases of individuals.   There was no doubt that the existence of the Criminal Bench of the Supreme Court, made up of a professional judge and two lay judges, was provided for by law (the Supreme Court Act (1999) and the Code of Criminal Procedure).   On the other hand, Georgian law did not adequately regulate the issue of how lay judges were to carry out their function as judges. The relevant sections of the Acts which previously governed this question (the 1990 Act on the Status of Judges and the Amending Act of March 1999) had, at the time of the events under dispute, been abrogated and had not been replaced by any other text. Admittedly, successive laws adopted between 1997 and 2005 had extended the terms of office of lay judges, but there was no text that contained provisions concerning, among other things, the selection of candidates, their appointment, their rights and obligations, etc. Yet these elements – as much as the existence of the court itself – ought to have been provided for by law in order for a court to be considered as having been “established by law”.   Ultimately, the two lay judges who sat in the case of Mr Panjikidze, Mr Kurashvili and Mr Kantaria had been required to dispense justice on an equal footing with the professional judge and, in view of their number, held the majority of votes necessary to determine the merits of a criminal charge. In so far as the exercise of their function as judges resulted from a judicial practice that did not have a sufficient legal basis in domestic law, the bench on which they sat did not amount to a “tribunal established by law”. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.