Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-2 ; Violation of Art. 6-3-a ; Not necessary to examine Art. 10 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The complaint was as to the independence and impartiality of the first instance court.
Held: The defect was not remedied by review of the decision by the Supreme Court: ‘There was no retrial of the case by the Supreme Court. As a court of appeal, the Supreme Court did not have full competence to deal de novo with the case, but could only review the first instance judgment for possible legal or manifest factual errors. It did not carry out an ab initio, independent determination of the criminal charge against the applicant for contempt of the Assize Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that it could not interfere with the judgment of the Assize Court, accepting that that court had a margin of appreciation in imposing a sentence on the applicant.’
Citations:
73797/01, [2004] ECHR 43
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
See Also – Kyprianou v Cyprus ECHR 15-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192314
