Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115
January 2009
Lenskaya v. Russia - 28730/03
Judgment 29.1.2009 [Section I]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Quashing of final judgment by way of supervisory review for serious deficiencies in criminal proceedings: no violation
Facts: In 2000 the authorities instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Ch., the applicant's former husband, on the basis of her allegation that he had assaulted her. On 15 July 2002 the district court found Mr Ch. guilty of assault, sentenced him to six months correctional labour suspended on probation and awarded the applicant damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. The conviction was upheld on appeal. On Mr Ch.'s request, the President of the regional court instituted supervisory-review proceedings. The court held a hearing at which the applicant was present and able to submit her arguments. On 11 December 2002 the Presidium of the regional court quashed the final judgment against Mr Ch. and acquitted him because the courts in the original proceedings had, without a proper assessment of the evidence, presumed that the applicant's injuries had been inflicted by Mr Ch. without proving his guilt and thereby violating the presumption of innocence.
Law: The rule of law being one of the fundamental principles of legal certainty, no party should be entitled to seek the reopening of proceedings merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh decision on the case. Departures from that principle might be justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character. In Mr Ch.'s case, the trial courts had failed to establish with certainty that the criminal act he had been accused of had actually taken place, so that by finding him guilty, they had violated his right to be presumed innocent. In such circumstances, the Presidium's decision to quash the final judgments, flawed as they were, did not appear unreasonable or arbitrary. Having examined the entire case file, the Presidium found that the lower courts had committed a miscarriage of justice by subjecting Mr Ch. to an unmerited conviction, which was sufficient in nature and effect to warrant the reopening of the proceedings. Recalling that the Convention in principle permitted the reopening of a final judgment to enable the States to correct miscarriages of criminal justice, the Court considered that leaving errors such as those committed in Mr Ch.'s case uncorrected would seriously affect the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings. Furthermore, there was nothing to indicate that the Presidium's evaluation of the facts and evidence presented in the supervisory-review proceedings had been contrary to the requirements laid down by Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant had not only attended the supervisory-review hearing, she had also been provided with ample opportunities to present her arguments and challenge the submissions of her adversary. In the particular circumstance of the case, the Court thus concluded that the quashing of the judgment of 15 July 2002 had not deprived the applicant of her “right to a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Having regard to the conclusion under Article 6, the Court further found that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
© 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