Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 84
March 2006
Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.) - 72776/01
Decision 9.3.2006 [Section III]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Second conviction after supervisory review: inadmissible
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
Second conviction after supervisory review: inadmissible
Facts: On 11 December 1998 the Kolomensiy Town Court of the Moscow Region convicted the applicant of tax evasion and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment; he started serving his sentence that same day. This conviction was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 9 April 1999.
On 20 June 1999 the applicant filed a petition for supervisory review to the President of the Moscow Regional Court.
On 15 July 1999 the applicant was discharged from serving the remainder of his sentence under an Amnesty Act. He was released from prison.
On 16 November 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the decision of 9 April 1999 on a technicality and remitted the case to the cassation instance for re-examination.
On 13 March 2000 the Moscow Regional Court remitted the case to the first-instance court for reconsideration.
On 24 January 2001 the first-instance court convicted the applicant of tax evasion and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment, but discharged him from the punishment by virtue of a new Amnesty Act.
The applicant appealed on the ground that he had already been convicted of the same offence in the first set of proceedings; however, on 27 February 2001 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant lodged two further requests for supervisory review but these were rejected.
Inadmissible under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7: The supervisory review in this case constituted a reopening of the case owning to a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Protocol No. 7; hence no issue under Article 4(1). Manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 6(1): The mere fact that the supervisory review was compatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is not sufficient to establish compliance with Article 6. The authorities must respect the binding nature of a final judicial decision and allow the resumption of criminal proceedings only if serious legitimate considerations outweigh the principle of legal certainty; in particular, a review of a final and binding judgment should not be granted merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case, but rather to correct judicial errors and miscarriages of justice.
In this case, it was the applicant himself who had asked for supervisory review of his conviction, and the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court found a number of serious grounds for quashing the judgment complained of. The resulting decision and retrial were not unfair and in the circumstances were not detrimental to the applicant’s interests. Manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy