CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE32676A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 }   156 25.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Lisica v. Croatia (application no. 20100/06)   CONVICTION FOR BANK ROBBERY BASED ON EVIDENCE OBTAINED WITHOUT DEFENDANTS’ KNOWLEDGE   Unanimously   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights      Principal facts   The applicants, Zlatko Lisica and Meri Lisica, are Croatian nationals who were both born in 1978 and live in Zadar (Croatia). In May 2000 they were arrested by the police on suspicion of robbing a bank vehicle. While they were in pre-trial detention, a stolen VW vehicle found by the police at the crime scene and a BMW vehicle owned by one of the applicants were searched. Neither the applicants nor their defence counsel were present. Two days later, a criminal investigation was opened against the applicants and, on the following day, another search of both vehicles was carried out on the basis of a search warrant and in the presence of the applicants’ defence counsel. The search record noted among other things that a plastic mould of a car lock was found in the applicant’s BMW.   As the applicants’ counsel learnt from informal statements made by police officers and as was later established by the courts, the BMW, kept by the police, had been entered by two police officers between the two searches, to take a sample of the seat cover for examination, without a search warrant and without the knowledge or presence of the applicants.     In September 2000, criminal proceedings were lodged against the applicants and four other persons. In February 2001, the county court found the applicants guilty of bank robbery and imposed a prison sentence on them. The court relied among other, circumstantial, evidence on the fact that the plastic mould found in the BMW presumably came from the broken lock of the stolen VW used for the robbery. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in May 2002 and increased their prison sentences to six years and six months and four years and ten months, respectively.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   6   §   1, the applicants complained that the manner in which the evidence was obtained during the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair.     The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Anatoly Kovler (Russian Federation), President, Nina Vajić (Croatia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev ( Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that while it was not its role to determine what types of evidence might be admissible in a trial, it had to answer the question whether the proceedings at issue had been fair as a whole, including the way the evidence had been obtained.   First, the Court ascertained that the rights of the defence had been respected in that the applicants had been able to lodge an objection as to the authenticity of the evidence in question. The national courts had considered the objection and had accepted the police officers’ statements that they had not planted the disputed item of evidence.   However, it was undisputed that the police officers had entered the vehicle without any authorisation. Indeed, during the initial search, carried out on the day the applicants were arrested, the contested item of evidence had not been found. The explanation given by the national courts that the first search had been superficial was not sufficient in view of the guarantees of a fair trial. Moreover, the minimum requirement of a search in a criminal investigation was that the defendant be given an adequate opportunity to be present. In the Court’s view there were doubts as to the reliability of the last search’s findings.   The disputed item obtained during that search, the plastic mould of a car lock, although not the only evidence on which the conviction had been based, had been given significant weight by the national courts. While it was not the Court’s task to assess whether the applicants’ conviction would have been secured without this item of evidence, it was clear that it had been the only direct link between the vehicle owned by one of the applicants and the vehicle used in the robbery.     In conclusion, the Court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.