ΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΠΟΙΝΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΣ - Ένα Απάνθισμα από τη...

22
ΝΟΜΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΔΔΑ ΓΙΑ ΔΙΚΑΙΗ ΠΟΙΝΙΚΗ ΔΙΚΗ ΠοινΔικ 2/2014 (ΕΤΟΣ 17ο) 147 Αποκτήστε πλήρη online πρόσβαση στην ΠοινΔικ από το 1998 – www.nbonline.gr Ι. Το δικαίωμα του κατηγορουμένου να ακουστεί και να εξετάσει τους μάρτυ- ρες κατηγορίας και υπεράσπισης και οι αρνητικοί της κατηγορίας ισχυρισμοί 1 * Εισήγηση στην Ημερίδα Ποινικής Δικονομίας της 29.3.2014 στο Τμήμα Νομικής του Ευρωπαϊκού Πανεπιστημίου Κύπρου με τη συμμετοχή επτά Καθηγητών και από τις τρεις Ελληνικές Νομικές Σχολές. ** Βλ. ΕΔΔΑ, 28.10.2004, Y.B. et autres c. Turquie, αριθμ. προσφ. 48173/99 et 48319/99: «43. La Cour rappelle que si le principe de la présomption d’innocence consacrée par le paragraphe 2 de l’article 6 figure parmi les éléments du procès pénal équitable exigé par l’article 6 § 1, il ne se limite pas à une garantie procédurale en matière pénale: sa portée est plus étendue et exige qu’aucun représentant de l’Etat ne déclare qu’une personne est coupable d’une infraction avant que sa culpabilité ait été établie par un tribunal (voir Allenet de Ribemont, précité, pp. 16-17, §§ 35-36)». Επίσης, ΕΔΔΑ, 14.11.2013, Kozlitin v. Russia, αριθμ. προσφ. 17092/04, § 58: «The Court reiterates that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. Therefore, it will examine the applicant’s complaints under these provisions taken together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I)». Περαιτέρω, ΕΔΔΑ, 28.11.2013, Dvorski v. Croatia, αριθμ. προσφ. 25703/11, § 86: «The applicant alleged that he did not have a fair trial and complained of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c). The Court first notes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings as set forth in paragraph 1 of the same Article. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint will be examined under these provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II; Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, § 55, 19 May 2009; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2 November 2010; Ο προσφεύγων στο ΕΔΔΑ κατά Σλοβενίας, όπου είχε καταδι- κασθεί για λειτουργία μπαρ πέραν της δεύτερης πρωινής ώρας, προέβαλε ως αιτίαση (κατηγορία, παράπονο) την παραβίαση Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 52, 24 November 2011; and Neziraj v. Germany, no. 30804/07, § 45, 8 November 2012)». Οι αποφά- σεις του ΕΔΔΑ βρίσκονται στο Internet στα αγγλικά ή στα γαλλικά (ενί- οτε και στις δύο γλώσσες) και στην ιστοσελίδα της Cour Européenne des Droits de l' Homme (CEDH - Recueil HUDOC), ενώ πάντοτε για την ανεύρεση μιας απόφασης θα αρκεί να δοθεί ο αριθμός της προσφυγής. 1. Για το δικαίωμα ακροάσεως-υπερασπίσεως (άρθρο 20 παρ. 1 Συντ. και άρθρο 6 παρ. 1, 3 ΕΣΔΑ) που έχει τρεις βαθμίδες (δικαίωμα για λήψη πληροφοριών και ενημέρωση, δικαίωμα για έκφραση, προβολή ενστά- σεων και παρατηρήσεων, τοποθέτηση επί των ισχυρισμών της κατηγο- ρούσας αρχής και πρόταση-εξέταση αποδείξεων και δικαίωμα να απαι- τήσει ο κατηγορούμενος από το δικαστήριο να λάβει υπόψη, να σταθμί- σει σοβαρά, να αξιολογήσει και γενικά να επεξεργαστεί, δίνοντας απά- ντηση, στην αιτιολογία της απόφασής του τα όσα σημαντικά και ουσιώ- δη για την έκβαση της δίκης εξέφρασε και διατύπωσε με ισχυρισμούς ή με αποδεικτικά μέσα ο ίδιος ή ο συνήγορός του) και αποτελεί συστα- τικό στοιχείο της δίκαιης δίκης βλ. Λάμπρου Μαργαρίτη, Σχηματισμός συνολικής ποινής (: άρθρο 551 ΚΠΔ) και κλήτευση του καταδίκου, ΠοινΔικ 2012, 1001 επ., Αργ. Καρρά, Ποινικό Δικονομικό Δίκαιο, 2011, σελ. 378 επ., Χρ. Σατλάνη, Αλήθεια και Δικαιοσύνη ως πρωταρ- χικοί σκοποί της ποινικής διαδικασίας μέσα από παραδείγματα, 1996, σελ. 88 επ., Ιακ. Φαρσεδάκη/Χρ. Σατλάνη, Ποινική Δικονομία - Βασικές Έννοιες και Θεμελιώδεις Αρχές, 2014, σελ. 180-185, Christos Satlanis, Die Subjektstellung des Beschuldigten im griechischen Strafverfahren unter den strafprozessualen Garantien des Art. 6 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Zugleich eine Einführung in den Begriff des fairen rechtsstaatlichen Strafverfahrens), Tübingen, 1988, σελ. 49 επ., 138 επ., με περαιτέρω παραπομπές στη γερμανική νομική θεω- ρία και με αναφορά αποφάσεων του ΕΔΔΑ και του Ομοσπονδιακού Συνταγματικού Δικαστηρίου της Γερμανίας (BVerfG). Ένα Απάνθισμα από τη Νομολογία του ΕΔΔΑ του έτους 2013 για τη δίκαιη ποινική δίκη* ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ ΦΑΡΣΕΔΑΚΗ, Καθηγητή- Προέδρου στο Τμήμα Νομικής του Ευρωπαϊκού Πανεπιστημίου Κύπρου ΧΡΗΣΤΟΥ ΣΑΤΛΑΝΗ, Καθηγητή στο Τμήμα Νομικής του Ευρωπαϊκού Πανεπιστημίου Κύπρου Οι απαιτήσεις, που προβλέπονται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (ΕΣΔΑ) στις παρ. 2 και 3 του άρθρου 6, θα πρέπει να θεωρούνται ως ιδιαίτερες εκφάνσεις του δικαιώματος του κατηγορουμένου για μια δίκαιη ποινική δίκη, το οποίο εγγυάται το άρθρο 6 παρ. 1. Για τον λόγο αυτόν οι αιτιάσεις του κάθε προσφεύγοντος στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (ΕΔΔΑ) εξετάζονται υπό το πρίσμα όλων αυτών των διατάξεων.** Ωστόσο, τα δικαιώματα που προβλέπονται από το άρθρο 6 της ΕΣΔΑ και περιλαμβάνονται στην αόριστη έννοια «δίκαιη ποινική δίκη» χρήζουν αλλεπάλληλων συγκεκριμενοποιήσεων και αυτό επαληθεύεται από το ότι καθημερινά το ΕΔΔΑ ανακαλύπτει και νέες πτυχές του δικαιώματος για μια δίκαιη ποινική δίκη, διαμορφώνοντας και αναφέροντας διαρκώς το ίδιο το δικό του δίκαιο των περιπτώσεων. Τhe requirements of Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights are to be seen as particular aspects of the right of the accused to a fair criminal trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. Therefore, every applicant's complaints are examined by the European Court of Human Rights under these provisions taken together. Nevertheless, the rights which are provided by Article 6 of ECHR and are contained in the vague concept «fair criminal trial» require successive concretizes and this is verified by the fact that the ECHR daily discovers new aspects of the right to a fair criminal trial, shaping and referring itself consistently its case - law. Δ΄ ΜΕΛΕΤΕΣ - ΓΝΩΜΟΔΟΤΗΣΕΙΣ

description

ΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΠΟΙΝΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΣ - Ένα Απάνθισμα από τη Νομολογία του ΕΔΔΑ του έτους 2013 για τη δίκαιη ποινική δίκη

Transcript of ΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΠΟΙΝΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΣ - Ένα Απάνθισμα από τη...

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 147

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    . - 1

    * 29.3.2014 .

    ** . , 28.10.2004, Y.B. et autres c. Turquie, . . 48173/99 et 48319/99: 43. La Cour rappelle que si le principe de la prsomption dinnocence consacre par le paragraphe 2 de larticle 6 figure parmi les lments du procs pnal quitable exig par larticle 6 1, il ne se limite pas une garantie procdurale en matire pnale: sa porte est plus tendue et exige quaucun reprsentant de lEtat ne dclare quune personne est coupable dune infraction avant que sa culpabilit ait t tablie par un tribunal (voir Allenet de Ribemont, prcit, pp. 16-17, 35-36). , , 14.11.2013, Kozlitin v. Russia, . . 17092/04, 58: The Court reiterates that the requirements of Article 6 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 1. Therefore, it will examine the applicants complaints under these provisions taken together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, 27, ECHR 1999-I). , , 28.11.2013, Dvorski v. Croatia, . . 25703/11, 86: The applicant alleged that he did not have a fair trial and complained of a violation of Article 6 1 and 3 (c). The Court first notes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings as set forth in paragraph 1 of the same Article. Accordingly, the applicants complaint will be examined under these provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, 29, Series A no. 277-A; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, 82, ECHR 2001-II; Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, 55, 19 May 2009; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, 94, 2 November 2010;

    , - , (, )

    Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, 52, 24 November 2011; and Neziraj v. Germany, no. 30804/07, 45, 8 November 2012). - Internet (- ) Cour Europenne des Droits de l' Homme (CEDH - Recueil HUDOC), .

    1. - ( 20 . 1 . 6 . 1, 3 ) ( , , - , - - - , - , , -, - ) - . , (: 551 ) , 2012, 1001 ., . , , 2011, . 378 ., . , - , 1996, . 88 ., . /. , - , 2014, . 180-185, Christos Satlanis, Die Subjektstellung des Beschuldigten im griechischen Strafverfahren unter den strafprozessualen Garantien des Art. 6 der Europischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Zugleich eine Einfhrung in den Begriff des fairen rechtsstaatlichen Strafverfahrens), Tbingen, 1988, . 49 ., 138 ., - (BVerfG).

    2013 * , - ,

    , () . 2 3 6, , 6 . 1. () .** , 6 , .

    he requirements of Article 6 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights are to be seen as particular aspects of the right of the accused to a fair criminal trial guaranteed by Article 6 1. Therefore, every applicant's complaints are examined by the European Court of Human Rights under these provisions taken together. Nevertheless, the rights which are provided by Article 6 of ECHR and are contained in the vague concept fair criminal trial require successive concretizes and this is verified by the fact that the ECHR daily discovers new aspects of the right to a fair criminal trial, shaping and referring itself consistently its case - law.

    -

  • 148 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    ,2 , , - . , - 3 (14. On 19 November 2008 the applicant submitted a written statement in which he disputed the allegation that his bar had been open at 3.45 a.m. and sub-mitted that a private party had been held there). ( ) ' - 1.200 . (the Ilirska Bistrica Local Court) -, - - , (17. Also in this case the jurisdiction was transferred to the Ilirska Bistrica Local Court, which on 12 January 2010, referring to section 65 of the Minor Offences Act, delivered a judgment rejecting the applicants re-quest for judicial review. The court also drew the applicants attention to the fact that no appeal lay against the judgment). , , , , , , - . -

    2. . Christos Satlanis, Die Subjektstellung des Beschuldigten im griechischen Strafverfahren , 1988, . 12-282, Robert Esser in: Lve-Rosenberg, StPO (Strafprozessordnung), 26. Auflage, Band 11, 2012, . 333-716, , - 6 , 2000, . , , 2003, . 309 ., 359 ., , , 2004, 5 ., . , , 2005, 1919 ., . , 6 . 1 -. , 2008, . 133 ., . , ( ), 2012, . 15 ., . /. , - , 2014, . 169 ., .

    3. , , -, .. , - . () .

    (32. In this connection the Court reiterates that when officers' observations are the sole basis for a conviction, an oral hearing may be essential for the protection of the accused persons interests in that it can put the credibility of the police officers' findings to the test The Court notes that the domestic court had given no explanation as to the significance of the applicants statement to this effect and that the Government did not refer to any relevant legislation or courts' established practice indicating that the holding of a pri-vate party was, as a matter of principle, considered tantamount to operating the bar). , , - , (34. In view of the above, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing before the Ilirska Bistrica Local Court at which the applicant and the witnesses could have been examined. The Court does not find it necessary to consider the case separately in the light of Article 6 3 (c) and (d) ...).4

    - () , - . , , - .5 - (: ). - (. 1/2010, www.areiospagos.gr, 298/2010 2011, 283 .) , , , , - , - , , . - - - ( ). , , -

    4. , 28.2.2013, Milenovic v. Slovenia, . . 11411/11, 13-19, 28-34.

    5. . . , , 2011, . 488 ., . , , ' , , 2011, . 948 ., . /. , - , 2014, . 265 . 436.

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 149

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    -, , , - (, , -, .. - - - - - -). ' , , - . - , , - - in dubio pro reo ( ) . , , , - , .6

    , , , - , - , . , ( ) , , - . 32. The Court has held that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicants guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial,

    6. . . , , 2007, . 513-516, . , , 2011, . 961 ., . , , ' , , 2012, . 3102 ., . /. , - , 2014, . 184 ., 189 ., 451 ., 564 .

    properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, 32, Series A no. 134, Constantinescu, cited above, 55, and Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, 36, 22 November 2011). ... 34. Turning to the present case, the Court finds that it is not disputed that the applicant was first acquitted by the County Court but was afterwards convicted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court despite the fact that neither court had actively heard him or any other evidence directly. 40. In these circumstances, the omission of the Court of Appeal to hear the witnesses in person, and the failure of the Supreme Court to redress the situation by referring the case back to the Court of Appeal for a fresh examination of the evidence, substantially reduced the applicants defence rights (Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, 45, 18 May 2004 and Gitnaru, cited above, 32). The Court reiterates that its case-law underlines that one of the requirements of a fair trial is the possibility for the accused to confront the witnesses in the presence of a judge who must ultimately decide the case, because the judges observations on the demeanour and credibility of a certain witness may have consequences for the accused 42. Since that requirement was not satisfied, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 6 1 of the Convention.7

    , 10.10.2013, Topic v. Croatia, . . 51355/10, - . , , - (38. The applicant argued that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because the trial court had based its decision only on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. At the same time his request for witnesses to be examined and for a fingerprint analysis to be commissioned had been dismissed). ( 6 . 1, 3 ) -, , , - , - (42. Thus, when the applicant has made a request to hear witnesses which is not vexatious, and which is sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject matter of the accusation and could arguably have strengthened position of the defence or even led to the applicants acquittal, the domestic authorities must provide relevant reasons for dismissing such request (see Polyakov v. Russia, no. 77018/01, 34-35, 29 January 2009; and Gregaevi, cited above, 68)). -

    7. , 4.6.2013, Hanu v. Romania, . . 10890/04, 32 .

  • 150 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    , , (43. The Court notes that from the very initial stages of the proceedings the applicant contended that the package found in the rubbish bin did not belong to him He also argued that he had in fact thrown a beer can into the bin, and in support of his arguments he insisted that three persons, eyewitnesses to the event, be questioned and not the package containing drugs 48. The Court therefore considers that by dismissing all requests by the defence and accepting all the prosecution arguments and evidence the trial court created an unfair advantage in favour of the prosecution and consequently deprived the applicant of any practical opportunity to effectively challenge the charges against him. 49. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention).8 - ( 6 . 3 ), , - , .

    , - - , - (.. - - ..) . ' 6 . 1, 3 . ,

    8. , 3.10.2013, Iljazi v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, . . 56539/08: 34. The applicant com-plained under Article 6 3 (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts' refusal to admit the written statements of witnesses S.B. and T.S. and to secure their attendance and examination at the trial. 47. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that, in the absence of any direct evidence, the applicant should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge the assumption that he had loaded and hidden the drugs in the truck (= -). The refusal to examine the defence witnesses, at least T.S., led to a limitation of the defence rights incompatible with the guarantees of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 (see Popov, cited above, 188). 48. The Court considers that there has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.

    (hearsay witness, Zeuge vom Hrensagen),9 - .

    , - . , ' , , - ( , , , ..), - - , ( ). , 10 .11

    9. , - , - : . Claus Roxin/Bernd Schnemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 2009, . 368 ., , - .

    10. , 9.7.2013, Sica c. Roumanie, . . 12036/05, 66 .: Dans ces circonstances, la Cour estime que les dpositions de G.S. constituaient les lments charge dterminants, et que le procs-verbal dinterpellation et la dclaration de S.D. ne faisai-ent quappuyer les dclarations du tmoin que lintress na pas pu interroger (voir, mutatis mutandis, Hmmer c. Allemagne, no 26171/07, 44 et 49, 19 juillet 2012). 67. La Cour doit donc vri-fier si les autorits internes ont adopt des mesures suffisantes pour contrebalancer les difficults causes la dfense. Y a-t-il eu des garanties procdurales suffisantes pour contrebalancer les inconvnients lis ladmission des dpositions de G.S. ? 70. Dans la prsente affaire, G.S. a t entendue par la police et par la suite par le parquet pendant les poursuites pnales mais elle na jamais comparu devant le tribunal. Ni le tribunal ni le requrant nont donc pu lobserver pendant linterrogatoire pour apprcier sa crdibilit et la fiabilit de sa dposition. 77. Compte tenu de ce qui prcde, la Cour estime que le caractre dterminant de la d-position de G.S. en labsence dans le dossier dautres lments de preuve solides aptes la corroborer emporte la conclusion que les tribunaux nont pas pu apprcier correctement et quitablement la fiabilit de cette preuve. La Cour juge que les droits de la dfense du requrant ont ainsi subi une limitation incompatible avec les exi-gences dun procs quitable. Partant, il y a eu violation de larticle 6 1 de la Convention combin avec larticle 6 3 d).

    11. . . /. , - , 2014, . 219 ., 360 ., - , . , ( - ), 2012, . 62-68, 188 ., , . , -, - -

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 151

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    .12

    Al-Khawaja Tahery 15.12.2011, 2012, 641 .

    12. . , 3.12.2013, Vararu c. Roumanie, . . 35842/05, 44 ., , 19.12.2013, Rosin v. Estonia, . . 26540/08, 54 . ( - , , - ), , 17.9.2013, Brzuszczynski v. Poland, . . 23789/09, 59 ., , 9.7.2013, Sica c. Roumanie, . . 12036/05, 52 ., , 9.7.2013, Bobes c. Roumanie, . . 29752/05, 53 ., , 18.7.2013, Vronchenko v. Estonia, . . 59632/09, 53 ., , 5.4.2013, Yevgeniy Ivanov v. Russia, . . 27100/03, 42 .: 42. There are two re-quirements which follow from the above general principle. First, there must be a good reason for the non-attendance of a witness. Second, when a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether dur-ing the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence may be restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees pro-vided by Article 6 (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, 119, 15 December 2011). 43. Nonetheless, even where a hearsay statement is the sole or decisive evidence against a defendant, its admission as evidence will not auto-matically result in a breach of Article 6 1. At the same time, where a conviction is based solely or decisively on the evidence of absent wit-nesses, the Court must subject the proceedings to the most search-ing scrutiny. The question in each case is whether there are sufficient counterbalancing factors in place, including measures that permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence to take place. This would permit a conviction to be based on such evidence only if it is sufficiently reliable given its importance in the case (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, 147). 45. The Court must further consider three issues in the instant case: first, whether a reasonable effort was made by the authorities to secure the appear-ance of the witnesses in question at court; second, whether their untested evidence was the sole or decisive basis for the applicants conviction; and, third, whether there were sufficient counterbalanc-ing factors, including strong procedural safeguards, to ensure that the trial, judged as a whole, was fair within the meaning of Article 6 1 and 3 (d) (see Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, 114, 3 May 2012). 49. Finally, the Court notes the absence of any counterbal-ancing factors to compensate for the non-attendance of Mr O., Mr M. and Mr I. at the trial and for the difficulties caused to the defence by the admission in evidence of their untested statements (compare Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, 156-158 and 161-165). the Court dismisses the Governments preliminary objections as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that there has been a vio-lation of Article 6 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. . , 4.6.2013, Kostecki v. Poland, . . 14932/09, 59 .: 72. Having regard to the foregoing, and viewing the fai rness of the pro-ceedings as a whole, the Court considers that the lack of opportunity to examine .K. and K.M. at the hearing did not, in the circumstances of the case, infringe the rights of the defence to such an extent that it constituted a breach of Article 6 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 3 (d) of the Convention. In reaching this conclusion due weight has been given to the above finding that .K. and K.M.s testimonies were not decisive for the conviction of the applicant. The applicants trial as a whole was thus not unfair. 73. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 3 (d) of the Convention.

    . H

    (- 377 . ) ( ) , . , 401 ( ), 404 ( , , , .. ' 405 ) 408 ( 384 407 ) - , , - 139 ( ) 371 . 2 ( - ). - .13

    13. , , . - 1997 ( 1997), , : , , , . , - , , - , . , - , , - . - , , - , , (. Internet , ) ( ). . , 6 , 2000, . 93 .: - ( ) , , . - . , , ' , .

  • 152 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    - Voica c. France.14 , , , - (les magistrats professionnels) (le jury populaire, les jurs). - , ,15 , , - .16 , , - , - , - .17 , -

    14. , 10.1.2013, Voica c. France, . . 60995/09, 40-55.

    15. , 10.1.2013, Voica c. France, . . 60995/09, 40: Labsence de motivation dun arrt qui rsulte de ce que la culpabilit dun requrant avait t dtermine par un jury populaire nest pas, en soi, contraire la Convention (Saric c. Danemark (dc.), no 31913/96, 2 fvrier 1999, et Taxquet c. Belgique [GC], no 926 /05, 89, CEDH 2010 -...).

    16. , 10.1.2013, Voica c. France, . . 60995/09, 41: Il nen demeure pas moins que pour que les exigences dun procs quitable soient respectes, le public et, au premier chef, laccus doivent tre mme de comprendre le verdict qui a t rendu. Cest l une garantie essentielle contre larbitraire. Or, comme la Cour la dj souvent soulign, la prminence du droit et la lutte contre larbitraire sont des principes qui sous-tendent la Convention (Taxquet, prcit, 90). Dans le domaine de la justice, ces principes servent asseoir la confiance de lopinion publique dans une justice objective et transparente, lun des fondements de toute socit dmocratique (Suominen c. Finlande, no 37801/97, 37, 1er juillet 2003, Tatichvili c. Russie, no 1509/02, 58, CEDH 2007-III, et Taxquet, prcit).

    17. , 10.1.2013, Voica c. France, . . 60995/09, 42: La Cour rappelle galement que devant les cours dassises avec participation dun jury populaire, il faut saccommoder des particularits de la procdure o, le plus souvent, les jurs ne sont pas tenus de ou ne peuvent pas motiver leur conviction (Taxquet, prcit, 92). Dans ce cas, larticle 6 exige de rechercher si laccus a pu bnficier des garanties suffisantes de nature carter tout risque darbitraire et lui permettre de comprendre les raisons de sa condamnation. Ces garanties procdurales peuvent consister par exemple en des instructions ou claircissements donns par le prsident de la cour dassises aux jurs quant aux problmes juridiques poss ou aux lments de preuve produits, et en des questions prcises, non quivoques soumises au jury par ce magistrat, de nature former une trame apte servir de fondement au verdict ou compenser adquatement labsence de motivation des rponses du jury (ibidem, et Papon c. France (dc.), no 54210/00, ECHR 2001-XII). Enfin, doit tre prise en compte, lorsquelle existe, la possibilit pour laccus dexercer des voies de recours.

    ,18 .19 Fraumens c. France (10.1.2013, . . 30010/10), - , - 2011 (!!!) -, - 6 . 1 .20

    18. Castellino c. Belgique, 25.7.2013, . . 504/080, 31 ., 38 . , - 6 . 1 , - , - - , , , - - , - ( et nonobstant le fait que la seconde procdure ne concernait que le seul requrant, les questions poses en lespce ne permettaient pas au requrant de savoir quels lments de preuve et circonstances de fait, parmi tous ceux ayant t discuts durant le second procs, avaient en dfinitive conduit les jurs rpondre par laffirmative aux trois des quatre questions le concernant. Ceci est dautant plus problmatique que laffaire tait complexe. 39. Enfin, il y a lieu de noter labsence de toute possibilit dappel contre les arrts de la cour dassises dans le systme belge).

    19. , 10.1.2013, Voica c. France, . . 60995/09, 46: Il ressort de larrt Taxquet (prcit) que lexamen conjugu de lacte daccusation et des questions poses au jury doit permettre de savoir quels lments de preuve et circonstances de fait, parmi tous ceux ayant t discuts durant le procs, avaient en dfinitive conduit les jurs rpondre par laffirmative aux quatre questions le concernant, et ce afin de pouvoir notamment: diffrencier les coaccuss entre eux; comprendre le choix dune qualification plutt quune autre; connatre les motifs pour lesquels des coaccuss sont moins responsables aux yeux du jury et donc moins svrement punis; justifier le recours aux circonstances aggravantes ( 97). Autrement dit, il faut des questions la fois prcises et individualises ( 98).

    20. , 10.1.2013, Fraumens c. France, . . 30010/10, 51: Enfin, la Cour prend note de la rforme intervenue depuis lpoque des faits, avec ladoption de la loi no 2011-939 du 10 aot 2011 qui a notamment insr, dans le code de procdure pnale, un nou-vel article 365-1. Ce dernier prvoit dornavant une motivation de larrt rendu par une cour dassises dans un document qui est appel feuille de motivation et annex la feuille des questions. En cas de condamnation, la loi exige que la motivation reprenne les l-ments qui ont t exposs pendant les dlibrations et qui ont con-vaincu la cour dassises pour chacun des faits reprochs laccus. Aux yeux de la Cour, une telle rforme, semble donc a priori suscep-tible de renforcer significativement les garanties contre larbitraire et de favoriser la comprhension de la condamnation par laccus, conformment aux exigences de larticle 6 1 de la Convention. Article 365-1 C.P.P. (cr par loin2011-939 du 10 aot 2011 - art. 12): Le prsident ou l' un des magistrats assesseurs par lui dsign rdige la motivation de larrt. En cas de condamnation, la motivation con-

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 153

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    - , , - ,21 , - - , , - 371 . 2 . , , , - , , , .

    III.

    22 20 . , , , - , -. , -

    siste dans l' nonc des principaux lments charge qui, pour cha-cun des faits reprochs laccus, ont convaincu la cour dassises. Ces lments sont ceux qui ont t exposs au cours des dlibrations menes par la cour et le jury en application de larticle 356, pralable-ment aux votes sur les questions. La motivation figure sur un docu-ment annex la feuille des questions appel feuille de motivation, qui est signe conformment larticle 364. Lorsquen raison de la particulire complexit de laffaire, lie au nombre des accuss ou des crimes qui leur sont reprochs, il nest pas possible de rdiger im-mdiatement la feuille de motivation, celle-ci doit alors tre rdige, verse au dossier et dpose au greffe de la cour dassises au plus tard dans un dlai de trois jours compter du prononc de la decision. Article 364 C.P.P.: Mention des dcisions prises est faite sur la feuille de questions, qui est signe sance tenante par le prsident et par le premier jur dsign par le sort ou, sil ne peut signer, par celui d-sign par la majorit des membres de la cour dassises.

    21. . , , - 152/2010, www.areiospagos.gr, .

    22. . , 14.11.2013, Kozlitin v. Russia, . . 17092/04, 37 .

    - (52 guarantee to everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to defend himself in person, to examine or have examined witnesses). , - , , , - ' (55. In appeal proceedings reviewing a case as to both facts and law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person For instance, where an appeal court has to make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused for the purpose of proving that he did not commit the act allegedly constituting a criminal offence (see Dondarini v. San Marino, no. 50545/99, 27, 6 July 2004)). , , - ' ( ) ' .23 ' ' , - , , - (56. The Court further reiterates that the principle of equality of arms is another feature of the wider concept of a fair trial, which also includes the fundamental right that criminal proceedings should be adversarial. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, 66-67, Series A no. 211)). , , - , (= : ) - (63. In his grounds of appeal the applicant contested his conviction on factual and legal grounds. He submitted, in

    23. , -, , , - .. , - : . . /. , - , 2014, . 332.

  • 154 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    particular, that he had not committed the impugned crimes and had an alibi which the trial court had refused to verify; he also complained that his conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence obtained under duress by police officers and that his co-defendant, Sh., had confessed before the trial court to having committed the murder himself). - . , , - . , 6 . 1, 3 , - ( In order for the applicant to participate in the appeal hearing in person, certain security measures would have needed to be arranged in advance of his transfer. The Court notes, however, that it was open to the domestic judicial authorities to ensure the applicant's participation in the appeal hearing by means of a video link prescribed by the domestic rules of criminal procedure and earlier found by the Court to be compatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention ... 73. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 65, 71 and 72 above, the Court considers that the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the present case did not comply with the requirements of fairness. There has therefore been a breach of Article 6 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 3 (c)).24

    Manolachi c. Roumanie ' - 6 . 1 . - . - . - , . - . , - , . - 6 . 1 , , -

    24. . , 14.11.2013, Kozlitin v. Russia, . . 17092/04, 37 .

    , ,25 -, - .26 Flueras c. Roumanie, 9.4.2013, . . 17520/04, 32 ., Roman Zurdo et autres c. Espagne, 8.10.2013, . . 28399/09 51135/09, 32 .27

    - ( , ), , -

    25. (gerichtliche prozessuale Frsorgepflicht): . ' . /. , - , 2014, . 204 .

    26. , 5.3.2013, Manolachi c. Roumanie, . . 36605/04, 34, 39 .: 49. La Cour observe que lorsque la cour dappel et la Haute Cour ont substitu une dcision de condamnation la dcision initiale dacquittement, elles ne disposaient daucune donne nouvelle. La jurisprudence de la Cour souligne cet gard que la possibilit pour laccus de se confronter avec un tmoin en la prsence du juge appel statuer en dernier lieu sur laccusation est une garantie dun procs quitable, dans la mesure o les observations du juge en ce qui concerne le comportement et la crdibilit dun tmoin peuvent avoir des consquences pour laccus (voir P.K. c. Finlande (dc.), no 37442/97, 9 juillet 2002 et mutatis mutandis, Pitknen c. Finlande no 30508/96, 62-65, 9 mars 2004 ainsi que Milan c. Italie (dc.), no 32219/02, 4 dcembre 2003). 50. Pour autant que le Gouvernement souligne le fait que le requrant na pas demand son audition ni celle des tmoins, la Cour estime que la juridiction de recours tait tenue de prendre doffice (= -) des mesures positives cette fin, mme si le requrant ne lavait pas sollicite expressment en ce sens (Dnil c. Roumanie no 53897/00, 41, 8 mars 2007 et Gitnaru c. Roumanie no 26082/05, 34, 26 juin 2012). En tout tat de cause, la Cour note que lon ne saurait reprocher au requrant un manque dintrt pour son procs (a contrario, Bragadireanu c. Roumanie, no 22088/04, 110, 6 dcembre 2007).

    27. 32. En lespce, il nest pas contest que les requrants, qui furent acquitts en premire instance, ont t condamns par lAudiencia Provincial de Malaga sans avoir t entendus en personne. cet gard, sagissant de largument du Gouvernement relatif au fait quen lespce une audience eut lieu, la Cour se doit de constater que les requrants nont pas t entendus au cours de cette audience. De mme, les tmoins, dont la dposition fut un des lments pris en compte par le juge pnal pour parvenir la condamnation des requrants, nont pas non plus t entendus par lAudiencia Provincial. 40. Les arguments ci-dessus permettent la Cour dobserver que lAudiencia Provincial a fond sa conclusion sur une nouvelle apprciation des lments de preuve administrs au cours de laudience publique devant le juge pnal no 2 de Malaga et sur lesquels les parties avaient pu prsenter leurs allgations. LAudiencia a procd cette nouvelle apprciation sans avoir eu un contact direct avec elles. Ainsi, la juridiction dappel a rinterprt les faits dclars prouvs et en a effectu une nouvelle qualification juridique, sans respecter les exigences du principe dimmdiatet (voir a contrario, Bazo Gonzlez c. Espagne, no 30643/04, 36, 16 dcembre 2008). 41. A la lumire de ce qui prcde, la Cour conclut quen lespce ltendue de lexamen effectu par lAudiencia Provincial rendait ncessaire laudition des requrants. Partant, il y a eu violation de larticle 6 1 de la Convention.

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 155

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    , - , - .28

    IV.

    - , - , - (. 6 . 1 , - ). , (, -) - 2 3 , , , . - , 27.8.1992 masi (. . 12850/87) : - , - ,

    28. , 25.7.2013, Henri Rivire et autres c. France, . . 46460/10, 29 .: 29. La cour dappel devait examiner laffaire en fait et en droit. En effet, laudience dappel impliquait, eu gard leffet dvolutif de lappel, un nouvel examen des preuves et de la culpabilit ou de linnocence des prvenus et, le cas chant, de leur personnalit. En raison des lments susmentionns, le caractre quitable de la procdure impliquait donc, en principe, le droit pour les requrants, non reprsents par un conseil, dassister aux dbats afin que leurs intrts soient exposs et protgs devant la juridiction dappel. 30. Les requrants ayant expressment sollicit le report de laudience dappel en raison dempchements prciss dans leur demande et justifis par des pices produites lappui de celle-ci (paragraphe 13 ci-dessus), la Cour doit examiner la question de savoir si la cour dappel pouvait juger que lexcuse ntait pas valable. 34. Ces lments suffisent la Cour pour conclure une violation de larticle 6 1 et 3 c) de la Convention.

    (.. , - ..), , , , - - . .29 - 2013, , , , - (- , -, ..): However, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, 87, ECHR 1999-V). Such an investigation, as under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and, if appropriate, punishment of those responsible, and should reflect a serious effort on the part of the authorities to discover what really occurred (see Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, 125, ECHR 2003-V). For an investigation to be considered effective, the authorities must, among other tasks, take reasonable steps to secure evidence concerning the incident, including a detailed statement concerning the allegations from the alleged victim, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, additional medical reports (see Bat and Others, cited above, 134.. Bat and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, 135-136, ECHR 2004-IV).30

    - () , , - . , - - ' - .31

    29. . , 28.7.1999, Selmouni , 25803/94, 87 ., , 2.11.2004, Martinez Sala , 58438/00, 145, , 13.6.2002, Anguelova , 38361/97, 147, , 20.7.2004, Mehmet Emin Yksel , 40154/98, 26 ., , 12.10.2004, Bursuc , 42066/98, 102 ., Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrechtskonvention, Mnchen, 2009, . 155 ., . , , 1994, . 1215 .

    30. , 28.5.2013, Sorokins and Sorokina v. Latvia, . . 45476/04, 95 .

    31. . , 8.2.1996 ( ), John Murray , . . 18731/91, . 50 ., 54, ,

  • 156 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    - , , - ( 137 . 239 ) - . - in dubio pro reo ( ).32

    33 , - .34 : ) . ) (the authorities must act of their own motion) - , , -

    2.5.2000, Condron , . . 35718/97, . 61 ., , 8.10.2002, Beckles , . . 44652/98, . 62 ., Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrechtskonvention, Mnchen, 2009, . 389, . /. , - , 2014, . 503 . 736, - .

    32. - ( 137 . 239 ) . . -, , 2013, . 21 ., 127 ., 137 .

    33. . . , , 2010, 1634 ., 1661 ., , - . . . /. , - , 2014, . 207 .

    34. , 4.5.2001, Jordan v. United Kingdom, . . 24746/94, 105 ., , 4.5.2001, elly v. United Kingdom, . . 30054/96, 96 ., , 14.3.2002, Edwards v. United Kingdom, . . 46477/99, 70 ., , 1.7.2003, Finucane v. United Kingdom, . . 29178/95, 68 ., , 15.5.2007, Ramsahai and others v. Netherlands, . . 52391/99, 333 ., , 27.7.1998, Gle v. Turkey, . . 21593/93, 80 ., , 20.5.1999, Ogur v. Turkey, . . 21594/93, 91 ., , 7.1.2010, Rantsev , . . 25965/2004, 224-247, 2010, 568, 572 ., .

    , , , .35 36 . , - .37

    35. , 4.5.2001, elly v. United Kingdom, . . 30054/96, 96 ., , 27.11.2007, recknell v. United Kingdom, . . 32457/04, 70 ., , 13.6.2002, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, . . 38361/97, 110, 139 .

    36. - 5 ( ) , . . - 5 - : , 25.5.1998, Kurt v. Turkey, . . 24276/94, 124 ., , 10.5.2001, , . . 25781/84, 150 ., Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrechtskonvention, 2009, . 128 ., 141 ., Fr dric Sudre, Droit Europen et international des droits de l' homme, 2008, . 296 ., 300 . , - , 10.10.2013, Yandiyev and others v. Russia, . . 34541/06, 43811/06 and 1578/07, 113 ., - 2 - - , (133. Noting the similarity of the three cases and the impressive amount of evidence collected by the investigators, the Court finds it regrettable that no steps have been taken to find out about the nature and provenance of the special passes used by the abductors).

    37. . Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrechtskon-vention, Mnchen, 2009, . 128 ., 141 ., , 4.5.2001, elly v. United Kingdom, . . 30054/96, 94 .: 94. The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the States general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force . The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. What form of investigation will achieve those purposes may vary in different circumstances. However, whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their own motion, once the matter has come to their attention. They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures .

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 157

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    - , , - , - 2 - : 125. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the States general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, 86, Reports 1998-I). The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. ... 131. Furthermore, a number of important investigative steps were never taken. For instance, it does not appear that the inspection of the crime scene was ever carried out. Nor have the Government mentioned any ballistic expert examinations of the weapon from which Beslan Arapkhanov allegedly fired at the servicemen. It appears that no fingerprints were taken from the gun in question either. ... 132. Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic investigative authorities demonstrably failed to act of their own motion38 and breached their obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious incident (see neryldz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, 94, ECHR 2004-XII). 135. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the killing of Beslan Araphkanov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.39

    38. = . , , ( 5, 8 ) , ' - , , ( ) - ( 25 . 1 ). , - , : . . /. , - , 2014, . 207-213, 575-579. , - !

    39. , 3.10.2013, Arapkhanovy v. Russia, . . 2215/05, 125 .

    V.

    , - 6 . 1, 3 , , , - -, ' - . 6 . 1, 3 , , , - - , - . , ( la Cour considre quil nest pas tabli que le requrant aurait eu connaissance de la possibilit dune requalification des faits de ngation en justification du genocide ), - . - , , - 40

    40. . Christos Satlanis, Die Subjektstellung des Beschuldigten im griechischen Strafverfahren unter den strafprozessualen Garantien des Art. 6 der Europischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Zugleich eine Einfhrung in den Begriff des fairen rechtsstaatlichen Strafverfahrens), Tbingen, 1988, . 126 ., 128 ., 6 . 1, 3 , - ( 336 ), - - ( 345 ), , DNA, ( 372 . 1 : 3 , ' - ) 115.000 , - , ,

  • 158 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    (La Cour estime ds lors que lAudiencia Provincial de Barcelone devait, pour faire usage de son droit incontest de requalifier les faits dont elle tait rgulirement saisie, donner la possibilit au requrant dexercer son droit de dfense sur ce point dune manire concrte et effective, et donc en temps utile).41

    VI.

    -, 6 , , , , , , , .42

    , (faux bijoux), ( 30 . 2 : - ). . Robert Esser in: Lve-Rosenberg, StPO, 26. Auflage, Band 11, 2012, . 543 ., 545 ( , 15.11.2007, Galstyan/ARM, 85: ), 554 ., . , ( - ) , - 345 , , - ..: . . /. , , 2013, . 68 ., 324 . 2 . . - , , . . /. , - , 2014, . 128 ., 370 .

    41. , 5.3.2013, Varela Geis c. Espagne, . . 61005/09, 34 . . . /. , - , 2014, . 345 ., - , . : - .

    42. , - , ,

    - , , . - - -, . , , . -, , , - ( 6 . 1, 3 ).43 ,

    . . . , , , - (30. Thus, in the present case, the applicant was undoubtedly affected by the restrictions on his access to a lawyer in that his statement to the police was used for his conviction. Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during police custody). 31. the absence of a lawyer during his questioning in police custody irretrievably affected his defence rights in so far as the evidence thus obtained, although declared unlawful by a final court decision, was still used at the later stages of the proceedings for the applicants conviction. 32. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention and there is no need for the Court to examine the remaining allegations): , 17.12.2013, Potcoava v. Romania, . . 27945/07.

    43. , 23.4.2013, Szer c. Turquie, . . 13885/05, 73 .: 82. Certes, le requrant a bnfici de lassistance dune avocate commise doffice lors de la prise de ses dpositions. Gardant lesprit que la Convention vise garantir des droits concrets et effectifs, la Cour doit valuer lefficacit de lassistance de cette avocate. 83. La Cour observe quil ressort des deux dpositions recueillies par la police en prsence dune avocate commise doffice que le requrant a avou avoir commis deux vols aggravs. Or elle constate que lavocate commise doffice ne sest pas oppose au recueil par la police des dpositions du requrant, alors quune telle pratique mconnaissait les dispositions du droit interne, et quelle na mme pas vrifi si les parents du requrant avaient t informs de larrestation de leur fils. Au vu de ces lments, elle estime que lassistance offerte au requrant tait manifestement dfaillante. 84. Il ressort des arrts rendus le 6 et le 24 fvrier 2004 que la cour dassises de Gaziantep a fond, pour lessentiel, la condamnation du requrant sur ces lments de preuve, obtenus au dtriment des droits de dfense du requrant. 85. Dans la mesure o les lments de preuve recueillis pendant la garde vue ont servi de fondement sa svre condamnation, la Cour considre que la cour dassises aurait d effectuer un contrle scrupuleux pour dterminer si les droits de la dfense du requrant avaient t respects (voir, mutatis mutandis, Padalov c. Bulgarie, no 54784/00, 54, 10 aot 2006). Or la cour dassises nen a rien fait. Partant, la Cour conclut quil y a eu violation de larticle 6 1 de la Convention combin avec son paragraphe 3 c).

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 159

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    - - ( )44 - 6 , .

    , - -, , . , , - .45 88. In order to exercise his right of defence, the accused should normally be allowed to effectively benefit from the assistance of a lawyer from the initial stages of the proceedings (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, 52, 27 November 2008). The right of everyone charged with a

    44. , - , , - (effet utile du trait, principle of effectiveness) , (. Bernhard Kempen/Christian Hillgruber, Vlkerrecht, 2007, . 83, Knut Ipsen, Vlkerrecht, 2004, . 143 ., Ulf Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties. The Modern International Law as Expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2007, . 218 ., Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law, Oxford, 2008, . 393 ., Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 2008, . 635, -principle of effective interpretation-, Rudolf Streinz, Europarecht, Heidelberg, 2005, . 212 ., 214, Matthias Herdegen, Europarecht, Mnchen, 2008, . 170 ., 185 .). - (positive obligations, obligations positives, Gewhrleistungspflichten), , - (.. ) ' - , , , - (): . . , - , 2010, 1298-1331, .

    45. (gerichtliche prozessuale Frsorgepflicht), : . ' . /. , - , 2014, . 203, 204 ., , .

    criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, cited above, 89). 90. The Court further reiterates its established case-law according to which the State cannot normally be held responsible for the actions or decisions of an accused person's lawyer (see Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, 28, Series A no. 282-A) because the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether appointed under a legal aid scheme or privately financed (see Czekalla v. Portugal, no. 38830/97, 60, ECHR 2002-VIII; see also Bogumil v. Portugal, no. 35228/03, 46, 7 October 2008). Nevertheless, in the case of a manifest failure by counsel appointed under the legal aid scheme, or in certain circumstances a privately paid lawyer, to provide effective representation, Article 6 3 (c) of the Convention requires the national authorities to intervene (see Gve v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, 130-131, ECHR 2009)).46 , , - , , - .47 , , , - , - , , .48

    , , - , ' - , - (

    46. , 28.11.2013, Dvorski v. Croatia, . . 25703/11), 88 .

    47. , 28.11.2013, Dvorski v. Croatia, . . 25703/11), 107 .: 107. Therefore, although the applicant was not represented by a lawyer selected on the basis of a fully informed choice during the police questioning, the Court does not consider that this rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (compare OKane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30550/96, 6 July 1999), since all the applicants rights were adequately secured during the trial and his confession was not the sole, let alone the decisive, evidence in the case and as such did not call into question his conviction and sentence (compare Gfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, 187, ECHR 2010; and, by contrast, Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, 95-96, 30 May 2013). 109. Accordingly, in the light of these considerations, given the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 6 1 read in conjunction with 3 (c) of the Convention.

    48. . . /. , - , 2014, . 146 ., 471 ., 646 ., 649 ., .

  • 160 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    ), , - : 82. The Court observes that the applicants main complaints can be set out as follows: counsel of the applicants own choosing was denied access to him and he was pressurised to terminate his services; the legal-aid lawyer served the interests of the authorities rather than those of the applicant; the applicants conviction was based on the evidence obtained in the pre-trial proceedings with the violation of his defence rights; and even though the Court of Appeal declared that evidence to be inadmissible, it had still relied on it. 94. The Court has also had regard to the subsequent use of statements made by the applicant during the preliminary investigation in breach of his defence rights. The Court notes that there is no dispute that that evidence was used against the applicant by the County Court. The Court of Appeal, having found that the County Court had unduly relied on the applicants pre-trial statements, excluded all such statements from the body of evidence ( ). However, on the basis of an analysis of the remaining evidence it found that the applicants conviction was nevertheless safe (, , ). 96. The Court considers that ... Although tainted evidence ( ) as such can be left aside in the subsequent proceedings, in the present case the Court of Appeals decision nevertheless demonstrated that the consequences of the breach of defence rights had not been totally undone ( ).49 97. In the light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that the applicants defence rights were irretrievably prejudiced owing to his inability to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 6 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.50

    ,

    49. , , - () , , , . - - . , , , , - . : . . /. , - , 2014, . 146 ., 471 ., 646 ., 649 .

    50. , 30.5.2013, Martin v. Estonia, . . 35985/09, 82 .

    - (29. the defence provided by Ms P. during the trial was not manifestly ineffective. The thrust of the applicants grievance is the failure on the part of Ms P. to provide an effective defence before the appeal court). , - . , (30. The Court notes that Ms P. did not appeal against the applicants conviction. Nor did she appear before the appeal court to plead the case on his behalf. In such circumstances, it must have been obvious to the applicant that he was left on his own). -, (video link) , -. , - , , , . - () 6 . 1, 3 (32. The appeal court should have examined whether the applicants counsel had been duly notified of the appeal hearing and whether, in her absence, the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned. Having omitting to take any of these steps, the domestic judicial authorities failed to secure effective legal assistance to the applicant during the appeal proceedings. 33. The Court concludes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant fell short of the requirements of Article 6 3 (c) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 1. Accordingly, there has been a violation of these Convention provisions).51

    VI.

    (18.9.2008, Vlachos c. Grce, . . 20643/06, 24 .) , - - . , - , , , , : 24. En outre, si lintervention dagents infiltrs peut tre tolrable dans la mesure o elle est clairement

    51. , 19.12.2013, Siyrak v. Russia, . . 38094/05, 29 .

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 161

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    circonscrite et entoure de garanties, l'intrt public ne saurait justifier l'utilisation d'lments recueillis la suite d'une provocation policire. Un tel procd est susceptible de priver ab initio et dfinitivement l'accus d'un procs quitable (voir, notamment, Teixeira de Castro prcit, 35-36 et 39; Vanyan c. Russie, no 53203/99, 46-47, 15 dcembre 2005). 25. Il y a provocation policire lorsque les agents impliqus membres des forces de l'ordre ou personnes intervenant leur demande ne se limitent pas examiner d'une manire purement passive l'activit dlictueuse, mais exercent sur la personne qui en fait l'objet une influence de nature l'inciter commettre une infraction qu'autrement elle n'aurait pas commise, pour en rendre possible la constatation, c'est--dire en apporter la preuve et la poursuivre (Teixeira de Castro prcit, 38; Ramanauskas c. Lituanie [GC], prcit, 55). , -. , , () - , , (26. En loccurrence, la Cour note quil ressort des explications du requrant et des documents produits que le policier G.B. sest prsent comme acheteur des faux billets apports par le requrant. Ce dernier fut arrt juste aprs avoir montr les faux billets au policier G.B. Le requrant fut par la suite condamn pour contrefaon de billets de banque, savoir des dollars amricains. Selon la disposition pertinente du code pnal grec, l'lment constitutif dudit crime est la fabrication ou la simple possession de faux billets. Or, comme la Cour de cassation l'a reconnu dans son arrt no 2383/2005, le crime de contrefaon avait t commis par le requrant avant d'entrer en contact avec le policier infiltr; en effet, le requrant tait dj en possession des faux billets en cause et il savait quils taient contrefaits. Partant, lactivit du policier na en lespce pas provoqu linfraction en cause, puisque celle-ci avait dj t commise bien avant la rencontre entre le requrant et G.B.).

    , 21.2.2008 ( 2008, 1332) - -. - , . - . - 7 , ( 2496/2005 2004, 979), , - . (6 . 1 ) - , ,

    , , , - .

    eixeira de Castro (9.6.1998) Ramanauskas (5.2.2008, . . 74420/01). eixeira de Castro ( - Ramanauskas ), - , : ) - . ) ( ) - , . ) - , - . ) . ) - - , . ) - - . - , . - 6 . 1 -, 10. (. . , , 2001, 193 ., . /. , (1997-1998), 2000, . 195 .).

    6 . 1 , , (. 30.5.2001 2002, 166 ., , -, , , - ' 6 . 1 , 2001 2002, 617 ., . . ,

  • 162 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    , , , , , , - , - ' 6 . 1 ).52

    , ' 6 , Baltins (8.1.2013), - , : 58. In the light of the above principles the Court shall first assess the substance of the applicants complaint that he had been the victim of police incitement. In this regard the Government emphasised the applicants predisposition to commit drug offences (see paragraph 50 above). The Court notes at the outset that, although the applicant had previously been convicted of storing drugs ( ), nothing in the case file suggests that he had been convicted of drug trafficking ( ) Lastly, as in Malininas (cited above, 37), with each offer the undercover agent asked the applicant to procure larger quantities of drugs and offered him a substantial monetary inducement; this raises doubts as to whether the conduct of the undercover agent remained purely passive. ... 64. The Court does not contest the

    52. . . , , 2003, . 376 ., . , - , 2008, 594 ., . , , 2011, . 266 ., . /. , - , 2014, . 512 ., (agent provocateur), Christos Satlanis, Die Subjektstellung des Beschuldigten im griechischen Strafverfahren unter den strafprozessualen Garantien des Art. 6 der Europischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Zugleich eine Einfhrung in den Begriff des fairen rechtsstaatlichen Strafverfahrens), Tbingen, 1988, . 242-244, , - - ( ), , - ( der zum Zweck der Verfolgung und der Verurteilung unzulssig provozierte , d.h. hergestellte Tter), , -, - ( 2 . 1, 7 . 2 .), - , - - .

    Government's arguments that the applicant's conviction was based on various items of evidence. However, it observes that such evidence resulted from the impugned operation carried out by the investigating authority. Besides, the crux of the matter before the Court concerns fair-trial guarantees in circumstances where the applicant had raised an arguable claim of incitement. 65. The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the domestic courts did not properly address the incitement plea raised by the applicant. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.53

    VIII. - ;

    3 - , - ' , , , ( ) Aids. , (. , 29.4.1997, H.L.R. v. France, . . 24573/94, 37 .). -, , , , 3 .54

    53. , 8.1.2013, Baltins v. Latvia, . . 25282/07, 58 .

    54. . . , - , 2003, . 217 ., 245 ., 249 ., 259 ., 321 ., 323 ., . , , 2004, 202 ., . -, . , , 2008, . 373 ., . . Mark W. Janis/Richard S. Kay/Anthony W. Bradley, European Human Rights Law, Oxford, 2008, . 215 ., D.J. Harris/M.O' Boyle/E.P. Bates/C.M. Buckley, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford, 2009, . 79 ., Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrectskonvention, 2009, . 149 ., Matthias Herdegen, Europarecht, 2010, . 26 ., Christos Satlanis, Fundamental Notions and Principles of Public International Law (with Elements of International Criminal Law and Procedure), 2010, . 282 ., 286 . . , 7.7.1989, Soering , . . 14038/88, , 28.2.2008, Saadi v. Italy, . . 37201/06, 129, 133, , 3.10.2013, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, . . 31890/11, 146 ., , 25.4.2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, . . 71386/10, 148: It is the settled case-law of the Court that expulsion or extradition (= -

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 163

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    - (- 3 ) , , : , - , - . , , . , - - (En particulier, la Cour considre quil appartient en principe au requrant de produire des lments susceptibles de dmontrer quil serait expos un risque de traitements contraires larticle 3, charge ensuite pour le Gouvernement de dissiper les doutes ventuels au sujet de ces lments (Saadi v. Italy, Application no. 37201/06, 28 February 2008, 129). ... Toutefois, lorsque des informations sont soumises qui donnent de bonnes raisons de douter de la vracit des dclarations du demandeur d'asile, celui-ci est tenu de fournir une explication satisfaisante pour les incohrences de son rcit (voir, notamment, Collins et Akaziebie c. Sude (dc.), no 23944/05, 8 mars 2007, et N. c. Sude, no 23505/09, 53, 20 juillet 2010). De la mme manire, il incombe au requrant de fournir une explication suffisante pour carter d'ventuelles objections pertinentes quant l'authenticit des documents par lui produits (Mo. P. c. France (dc.), no 55787/09, 53, 30 avril 2013)).55

    , , - , , - . - , (206. Moreover, the events following the applicants forcible return to Uzbekistan can be seen as confirming the well-foundedness of his fears. In particu-lar, it was submitted by his representatives and not disputed by the Government that neither his lawyers nor his relatives have been able to contact the applicant during his detention

    ) by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, 125, ECHR 2008, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, 91, Series A no. 161).

    55. , 14.11.2013, Z.M. c. France, . . 40042/11, 60, , 25.4.2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, . . 71386/10, 151.

    in Andijan. The Court notes that that situation is in line with the concerns voiced by, in particular, Amnesty International (as quoted in Zokhidov, cited above, 111) that individuals re-turned to Uzbekistan from other countries pursuant to extradi-tion requests were held in incommunicado detention, which increased their risk of being ill-treated. 207. In view of the fore-going, the Court concludes that the applicant's forcible return to Uzbekistan exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. ... 182. In view of the above, the Court is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence in favour of the applicants account of events and that the burden of proof should shift to the respondent Government. Since, as shown above, the Government have not rebutted the applicant's representatives' version of the incident, the Court finds it established that (a) the applicant did not travel from Russia to Uzbekistan of his own free will but was forcibly transferred to Uzbekistan by an unknown person or persons following his release from SIZO-1 in Nizhniy Novgorod on 2 November 2012, and (b) his transfer through the Russian State border at Domodedovo Airport took place with the authorisation, or at least acquiescence, of the State agents in charge of the airport).56

    - -, - , , , .., - , , , .. - , - , ..

    - . , , , : 179. The Court reiterates that the obligation on Contracting Parties, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see El Masri, cited above, 198, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 115, ECHR 2000-III). Those measures should provide effective protection,

    56. , 7.11.2013, Ermakov v. Russia, . . 43165/10, 182, 228 .

  • 164 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    in particular, of vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, 73, ECHR 2001-V, and, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, pp. 3159-60, 115). 185. The authorities' failure to take any such action in the present case amounts to a violation of the States positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention .57

    , , - - , - . , - . .

    IX.

    - . , . . - , 2013:

    1. Morice , , 19.10.1995 . . 1995 . 1997 . , . . .. 21 2000 - . 7 2000 - Le Monde Borrel: ., - . - . .. 6 . 1 (

    57. , 25.4.2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, . . 71386/10, 179, , 7.11.2013, Ermakov v. Russia, . . 43165/10, 192.

    ), , (Cour de cassation), J.M. . 4 2000. 11.7.2013, ' 6 . 1 , - Morice. Morice - .58

    2. , ' ' , , - . - (43. It is therefore unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defence (see Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, 49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Josef Fischer v. Austria, no. 33382/96, 19, 17 January 2002)). -, - , - , .

    58. , 11.7.2013, Morice c. France, . . 29369/10. - 14 . , - (. 835/2007 2008, 238, 613/2006 2006, 1090, 1744/2004 2005, 704, 1424/2004 2004, 1706, 1661/2001 2002, 250). - , - , - . 3904/2010 171 , : . . /. , - , 2014, . 20 ., 175 .

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 165

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    - . - , . . () , (47. At the same time, however, the above opinion of the State Attorneys Office of the Republic of Croatia was never communicated to the defence, nor did the defence have any knowledge of the opinion or any opportunity to reply to it before judgment was given (compare Lobo Machado v. Portugal, 20 February 1996, 31, Reports 1996-I). The Court is aware that under the relevant domestic law there was no obligation to forward the opinion of the State Attorneys Office of the Republic of Croatia to the applicant, but it cannot see the justification for such restrictions on the rights of the defence. Once the submissions unfavourable to the applicant had been made, the latter had a clear interest in being able to submit his observations on them before argument was closed. This is particularly so since the Supreme Courts jurisdiction embraced both questions of fact and questions of law (see Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991, 27, Series A no. 214-B)). (The onus was therefore on the Supreme Court to afford the applicant an opportunity to comment on the written observations of the State Attorneys Office of the Republic of Croatia prior to its decision). , ' ' - ' 6 . 1 .59

    3. - , - , , - - ( 6 . 1, 3 ) (27. The Court observes in this connection that on 18 March 2008 the Sieradz Regional Court refused the applicants request to appoint a legal-aid lawyer in the cassation appeal proceedings on the ground that the time limit for lodging the cassation

    59. , 25.4.2013, Zahirovic v. Croatia, . . 58590/11, 42 . , - , 309 . 2 , ( -) , - , : . . /. , - , 2014, . 10, 305 ., 631 .

    appeal had already expired. The court did not examine the merits of the request or of the applicants financial situation in any way). - ( ) (24. According to the established case-law of the Court, the manner in which Article 6 is to be applied to courts of appeal or of cassation depends on the special features of the proceedings in question. The Court reiterates that the requirement that an appellant be represented by a qualified lawyer before a court of cassation cannot, in itself, be seen as contrary to Article 6. This requirement is clearly compatible with the characteristics of the Supreme Court as the highest court in Poland examining extraordinary remedies such as cassation appeals on points of law and it is a common feature of the legal systems in several member States of the Council of Europe (see Vacher v. France, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp. 2148-49, 24 and 28; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 128, 22 March 2007). On the other hand, there can be no doubt that a State which does institute such courts is required to ensure that the lack of sufficient means will not be an obstacle for the parties to lodge available remedies to these courts). , , 6 . 1, 3 (32. Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of the case seen as a whole, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 1 in conjunction with Article 6 3 (c) of the Convention ).60

    4. , - , , - , , , (37. The Court reiterates that Article 6 3 (b) guarantees the accused adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and therefore implies that the substantive defence activity on his behalf may comprise everything which is necessary to prepare the main trial. The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction on the ability to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings. 38. The Court also notes that guarantees of Article 6 3 (b) extend to all stages of the court proceedings (see D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria, no. 29476/06, 81, 24 July 2012). ... 43. Given that the applicant was not, despite his requests, provided with a copy of the Court of Appeals judgment when he was preparing his appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court, the Court considers that in the present case the rights to a defence were subject to such restrictions that the applicant did not have the benefit of a fair trial. There has therefore been

    60. , 11.6.2013, Kowalski v. Poland, . . 43316/08, 23 .

  • 166 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    a violation of Article 6 3 (b) of the Convention taken together with Article 6 1 of the Convention).61

    X. ; 62

    1. Grayson and Barnham v. The United Kingdom , , - 6 , .63 - , 6 , - (22. The applicant contested the Governments argument. Relying on the Courts case-law, he argued that Article 6 of the Convention applied to all stages of criminal proceedings, including the proceedings whereby a sentence is fixed (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, 39, ECHR 2001-VII)) - - (43. The Court observes that under Russian law, defendants have the right to attend hearings concerning aggregate sentences. They may also appoint a lawyer to represent them before the sentencing court), 6 (44. This does not necessarily imply, however, that the presence of the applicant at the sentencing hearing is required by Article 6 1 of the Convention, as the requirements of that provision are autonomous in relation to those of national legislation). , , , - , , -

    61. , 16.5.2013, Chorniy v. Ukraine, . . 35227/06.

    62. . . , - ; ( 27.3.2008 ), 2008, 1142-1159.

    63. , 23.9.2008, . . 19955/05 15085/06, 37: 37. In Phillips v. the United Kingdom (no. 41087/98, 35 and 39, ECHR 2001-VII) the Court held that the making of a confiscation order under the 1994 Act was analogous to a sentencing procedure. Article 6 1, which applies throughout the entirety of proceedings for the determination of ... any criminal charge, including proceedings whereby a sentence is fixed, was therefore applicable (see also Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A). . Christoph Grabenwarter, Europische Menschenrechtskonvention, Mnchen, 2009, . 342 ., , - 6 - , - . , - , ..

    (51. While the Court finds it regrettable that the applicant was provided with the information pertaining to the sentencing hearing only one day before it was actually held, it has no reason to find that such belated notice prejudiced the applicant's position to such an extent as to render the proceedings against him unfair. 52. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the Russian judicial authorities were entitled to conclude that the applicant had waived, tacitly and unequivocally, his right to attend the hearing. 53. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 6 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention)).64 - - , , 6 . 1, 3 , .65

    2. - -

    64. , 28.11.2013, Aleksandr Dementyev v. Russia, . . 43095/05, 22 .

    65. . , (: 551 ) , 2012, 1001 ., 551 ( - ) ( ) 20 6 , - , - , - , , - .. , contra legem , - 25 . 1 ., - ( , ..) , - . , , : . . , - - , 2010, 1634 ., . /. , - , 2014, . 204 . , () .

  • 2/2014 ( 17) 167

    online 1998 www.nbonline.gr

    (16.3.1994 26.4.1994) - 9. , , - ( ) ( 156 : ..), (17. Invoquant larticle 6 1 et 6 3 a) c) et d) de la Convention, le requrant se plaint dune violation de son droit un procs quitable et de son droit d'accs un tribunal en raison du fait que les significations de la citation comparatre devant le tribunal correctionnel et du jugement le condamnant ont t effectues selon la procdure de signification aux personnes de domicile inconnu, alors que son domicile tait connu et dclar aux autorits de poursuite). , - - ' , . - . . , -, (18. En premier lieu, le requrant allgue une violation de larticle 6 1 et 3 a), c) et d), en raison du fait que la citation comparatre et la signification du jugement du tribunal correctionnel ont eu lieu selon la procdure de signification des personnes de domicile inconnu, alors qu'il avait indiqu son adresse aux autorits au stade de l'instruction de son affaire. Il s'ensuit que l'affichage du jugement dans un lieu public n'tait pas un mode de communication valable et que le dlai pour interjeter appel n'avait pas couru. Le requrant soutient, en outre, que la Cour de cassation na pas rpondu au moyen de cassation selon lequel tant la signification de la citation comparatre que celle du jugement taient nulls). , (36. Le Gouvernement souligne que le requrant savait quune procdure pnale tait pendante contre lui depuis 1994. Comme il avait chang dadresse, il aurait d le dclarer sans tarder au parquet Le requrant n'a donc pas respect l'obligation de dclarer tout changement d'adresse pose par l'article 273 1 c), ce qui a eu pour rsultat que tous les documents de l'instruction ainsi que le jugement ont t valablement signifis l'adresse qu'il avait initialement dclare66). , (, 9) (37. ... Le requrant insiste sur le

    66. - , , .

    fait que le parquet aurait d signifier la citation comparatre et le jugement ladresse indique, soit au 9, rue Efpalinou, et non la mairie dAthnes, ville de plusieurs centaines de milliers dhabitants).67 , (41. En loccurrence, la Cour note tout dabord que le rgime grec de la signification aux personnes de domicile inconnu vise assurer la scurit juridique et nest pas en soi incompatible avec les exigences dun procs quitable (Elyasin et Drakos prcits, 30 et 36 respectivement)). , , - 273 . 1 , . 9, - , . - , , . , , , . , , 6 (44. Rien ne le dispensait donc de son obligation dinformer le procureur comptent de sa nouvelle adresse, comme le prvoyait explicitement le code de procdure pnale. Faute dune telle dmarche, lhuissier de justice a raisonnablement conclu que le requrant avait dmnag une adresse inconnue, au moment o il lui a notifi la citation comparatre et, ensuite, le jugement condamnatoire. Il convient sur ce point de rappeler que lorsque l'huissier de justice s'est rendu l'adresse 9, rue Efpalinou pour notifier au requrant la citation comparatre, il a constat que ni le requrant ni aucun membre de sa famille n'habitait cette adresse. Or, interdire au parquet, lorsqu'il cite comparatre des accuss qui ont chang entretemps d'adresse sans le signaler, de faire usage de la procdure de communication applicable aux personnes de domicile inconnu, reviendrait l'obliger rechercher en vain des contumax pendant de longues priodes, ce qui risquerait d'entraner la prescription de l'infraction. Et c'est du reste ce qui se serait pass en l'espce, car si la cour d'appel avait accueilli la demande de rexamen du requrant, elle n'aurait pu examiner l'affaire quant au fond, puisque les infractions litigieuses auraient alors t

    67. ' , - , 156 ( ): 827/1984 1985, 59, 32/1994 1995, 97, 8/1995 1996, 829, 393/2004 2004, 232. - .

  • 168 2/2014 ( 17) . /.

    www.nbonline.gr online 1998

    prescrites. 47. Il ny a donc pas eu violation des dispositions de larticle 6 invoques par le requrant).68

    , -. , ' ,69 273 . 1 , - , , , -, , -, . , , ,70 , -

    68. , 24.10.2013, Ioannis Papageorgiou c. Grce, . . 45847/09, 6, 17 .

    69. , , , N.H. - , . 109 . 6 . 1 , (15. He noted that the participation of the judge in the examination of the same case for the second time had been in breach of the requirements of the domestic procedural law and therefore that the Supreme Court panel composed in this manner could not have been impartial. 31. In the present case, the Court notes that, as admitted by the Government, Article 109 of the CCrP provided that a judge should be disqualified from hearing any case which he or she had already heard previously in any of the three levels of ordinary jurisdiction Therefore, it was not a tribu-nal established by law within the meaning of Article 6 1 of the Convention. 32. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 1 of the Convention): . , 30.5.2013, Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, . . 31848/07, 30 . . 14 . 3 ( , , ), -, .

    70. , 156 ( - ): 827/1984 1985, 59, 32/1994 1995, 97, 8/1995 1996, 829, 393/2004 2004, 232.

    . , , -, .. ( 155 ). , , 273 . 1 , , , - .71 -, . -, , - , , , - , - -.72 -, , - 8 , .

    71. - ( - ) . - ( - ), , - , : . - . /. , - , 2014, . 278 . 453.

    72. . . /. , - , 2014, . 204 .