Site icon swarb.co.uk

Sejdovic v Italy: ECHR 10 Nov 2004

The claimant had been tried and convicted of manslaughter in his absence. The respondent said that he had waived his right to appear at trial by becoming untraceable.
Held: The claim succeeded: ‘The Court re-iterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial; however, any such waiver must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest.’
To inform someone of a prosecution brought against him was a legal act of such importance that it must be carried out in accordance with procedural and substantive requirements capable of guaranteeing the exercise of the accused’s rights. Even supposing that the applicant was indirectly aware that criminal proceedings had been opened against him, it could not be inferred that he had unequivocally waived his right to appear at his trial. As for the question of safeguards: ‘It remains to be determined whether the domestic legislation afforded him with sufficient certainty the opportunity of appearing at a new trial.’
That safeguard was absent, as the remedy that the criminal procedure code provided did not guarantee with sufficient certainty that the applicant would have the opportunity of appearing at a new trial to present his defence.

Citations:

56581/00, [2004] ECHR 620, (2004) 42 EHRR 360

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

See AlsoSejdovic v Italy ECHR 1-Mar-2006
. .
CitedMcGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
CitedMcGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227748

Exit mobile version