Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128
March 2010
Mihova v. Italy (dec.) - 25000/07
Decision 30.3.2010 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Inability of victim to join criminal proceedings as civil party where accused enters into plea bargain with prosecution during preliminary investigation: Article 6 inapplicable; inadmissible
Facts – The applicant made a complaint against a person or persons unknown for sexual abuse of her minor daughter. The authorities identified the man in question. The investigating judge subsequently applied a sentence resulting from a plea bargain between the accused and the prosecution. The applicant was not informed of the date of the hearing in the case and appealed on points of law against the judgment. The Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that an injured party who was not joined to the proceedings as a civil party could not appeal against a conviction or acquittal but could only request the prosecution to do so. In the meantime, the applicant commenced civil proceedings against the man in question.
Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicant had not been joined to the proceedings as a civil party, as the accused had entered into a plea bargain with the prosecution at the preliminary investigation stage. The question therefore arose whether Article 6 was applicable. In the instant case the applicant complained that she had been unable to challenge the sentence imposed, which she felt to have been too lenient. In the circumstances, the Court was of the view that the applicant’s chief aim in the criminal proceedings had been to take punitive action or exercise a right to “private revenge” which was not, as such, guaranteed by the Convention. Even assuming that Article 6 § 1 was applicable in such circumstances, the fact that domestic law did not allow the injured party to intervene in the plea bargaining between the accused and the prosecution and request a heavier sentence could not, in itself, be considered contrary to the Convention. Furthermore, the applicant had been able to bring a civil action for damages against the man in question, as a result of which she had secured an interim attachment of the defendant’s possessions. She had therefore had access to a court with jurisdiction to examine her civil right to compensation. Accordingly, there was no appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Conclusion: inadmissible (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