Information Note on the Court’s case-law 249
March 2021
Decision on a request for an advisory opinion by the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic
Request no. P16-2019-001
1.3.2021 [Panel of the Grand Chamber]
Legal summary
Article 6 § 1
Question raised not concerning an issue on which the requesting court would need the Court’s guidance: request rejected
Background – The request of the Supreme Court of Slovakia was made in the context of criminal proceedings brought against a police officer. In 2019 he had brought an appeal on points of law against his conviction for causing bodily harm and disorderly conduct before the Supreme Court. He contested that the investigation into his case had been carried out by agents of the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior who are directly subordinate in personal and functional terms to the Minister of the Interior, and are responsible for the prosecution of the police officers who are likewise subordinate to this latest.
In its question, the Supreme Court asked for guidance from the European Court on whether the Inspection Service met the criteria laid down under Articles 2, 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the investigation of crimes committed by police officers, and that such investigations had to be carried out by an independent and impartial authority, and its role in the trial in question.
Decision – The Court noted that the points raised only concerned the fairness of the defendant’s trial relevant for Article 6. In particular, a court had to be independent of the legislature, the executive and the parties.
In a previous unifying opinion (no. Tpj 62/2015) issued in 2015, the Supreme Court of Slovakia had found that “the guarantee of independence provided to the defendant by a court was unavailable to the victim if the case did not reach the stage of a judicial examination on the merits”. In the Court’s view, by finding that what was essential for the defendant’s fair-hearing rights to be secured in criminal proceedings was the independence of the trial court, the Supreme Court had provided relevant indications as to the answer to the question now submitted to the Court.
Thus, the issues raised in the present request for an advisory opinion, on account of their nature, degree of novelty and/or complexity or otherwise, did not concern an issue on which the requesting court would need the Court’s guidance to be able to ensure respect for Convention rights when determining the case pending before it. In sum, this request did not meet the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 16 and the Court accordingly decided not to accept it.
(See also Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], 24014/05, 14 April 2015, Legal Summary)
© 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