ECtHR cases
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2032284418801662 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Update |
ECHR Update
ECtHR cases:
April to June 2018
Ben Wild
Article 6
Correia de Matos v. Portugal (application no. 56402/12)
The case concerned the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a lawyer by training, for
insulting a judge, and the fact that he was not permitted to conduct his own defence in those
proceedings because the domestic courts required him to be represented by a lawyer.
The court observed that the decision of the Portuguese courts requiring the applicant to be
represented by counsel had been the result of comprehensive legislation seeking to protect accused
persons by securing an effective defence in cases where a custodial sentence was possible. The
essential aim of the Portuguese rule of mandatory legal representation in criminal proceedings was
to ensure the proper administration of justice and a fair trial respecting the right of the accused to
equality of arms.
With regard to the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not discern any cogent reasons to
doubt that the applicant’s defence by court-appointed counsel had been conducted properly or to
consider that the conduct of the proceedings by the domestic courts had been in any way unfair.
Outcome
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to defend oneself in person)
Goran Kovaˇ
cevic
´v. Croatia (application no. 34804/14)
The applicant, Goran Kovaˇcevic´, is a Croatian national who was born in 1981 and lives in
Dubrovnik (Croatia).
The case concerned Mr Kova ˇcevic´’s allegation of police ill-treatment, denial of access to
a lawyer and of being forced to make incriminating statements against his co-accused in
the trial.
Mr Kovaˇcevic´ was arrested on 21 October 2010. The following day, he confessed during
questioning to having sold amphetamines and bought cocaine from one of his co-accused. He
repeated his confession to the investigating judge and was released. According to the two reports
on his questioning by the police and by the investigating judge, he had sustained minor injuries
when resisting the police during his arrest, as confirmed by a doctor. He had also been advised of
his right to remain silent and to a hire a lawyer. He had, however, refused to hire a lawyer of his
own choosing and had signed both reports without objections.
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 9(3) 402–422
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2032284418801662
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
He eventually hired a lawyer in December 2010 and his case went to trial in January 2011. Six
months later, at theend of the trial, he stated that he had been beaten bothduring his arrest and at the
police station. He alsoretracted his confession about buying cocaine, alleging thatit had been made
under duress.The trial court, dismissing these allegations as lacking credibility, found Mr Kovaˇcevic´
guiltyand sentenced him to 2 years in prison.His conviction was upheldby the Supreme Court in 2012
and hissentenced reduced to 1 year.His constitutionalcomplaint was dismissedas ill-founded in 2013.
Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance
of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Kovaˇcevic´ alleged that his
trial had not been fair because he had been denied access to a lawyer and pressured into making
incriminating statements against his co-accused.
Outcome
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c)
Dimitras v. Greece (no. 11946/11)
The applicant, Panayotis Dimitras, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Glyka
Nera (Greece). The case concerned his complaint that his criminal action for slander against a
Government official had never been heard as the official had received immunity after being elected
to Parliament, there had been delays caused by the domestic authorities and the offence eventually
had become time-barred.
On 1 June 2007, Mr Dimitras lodged a criminal complaint for slander against E.T., the General
Secretary of a Government Ministry. He accused E.T. of making false statements to the press about
the Greek Helsinki Monitor, a non-governmental organization of which he is the executive direc-
tor. However, while the case was still pending, E.T. was elected a Member of Parliament and the
court suspended the proceedings until Parliament granted leave to continue the prosecution. In
October 2010, about 1 month after the offence had become time-barred (on 4 September 2010),
Parliament ruled that E.T.’s immunity should not be lifted and dismissed the request for leave to
continue the criminal proceedings. When E.T.’s parliamentary term came to an end, the case was
nonetheless considered by the domestic court, which held on 26 October 2012 that the offence had
become time-barred, and ended the criminal prosecution.
Relying in particular on Article 6§1(access to court), Mr Dimitras argued that the authorities
had knowingly let the statute of limitations expire, resulting in the offence becoming time-barred
and a breach of his right of access to court. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing
within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complained that the
length of the proceedings – more than 5 years – had been excessive and that there had been no
effective remedy in Greece for him to bring a complaint about that.
Outcome
No violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Violation of Article 13
Just satisfaction
EUR 3000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)
Wild 403
To continue reading
Request your trial