Published on 2 January 2023
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 47577/17
Artur MKRTUMYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 27 June 2017
communicated on 7 December 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the alleged failure by a public defence counsel to ensure his practical and effective legal assistance. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
On 23 June 2016 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment by the Tavush Regional Court.
During the proceedings before the Tavush Regional Court, he was represented by A.M., who, according to the applicant, was a public defence lawyer.
A.M. and the victim’s legal heir lodged appeals against the judgment.
In the proceedings before the Criminal Court of Appeal the applicant was represented by G.M., who had apparently been appointed by the Public Defender’s Office as well.
On 14 September 2016 the Criminal Court of Appeal partially granted the appeal filed by the victim’s legal heir and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It raised the applicant’s sentence to 14 years’ imprisonment. According to the decision, it was subject to appeal within a one-month period following its pronouncement.
On 27 September 2016 that decision was served on the applicant and G.M.
On 19 October 2016 an appeal on points of law, jointly signed by the applicant and G.M., was submitted to the Court of Cassation.
On 28 November 2016 the Court of Cassation decided to leave the appeal without examination on the grounds that the applicant had missed the one‑month time-limit for appeal and had not submitted a request to restore that time-limit. It did not set a new time-limit to resubmit the appeal.
On 9 December 2016 G.M. resubmitted the appeal together with a request to restore the missed time-limit, arguing that the copy of the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal had been served on 27 September 2016.
On 28 December 2016 the Court of Cassation rejected the request and declared the appeal inadmissible as being belated.
The applicant complains that he was deprived of his right to effective legal assistance to appeal against his conviction because G.M. had missed the time‑limit for lodging an appeal on points of law and had failed to submit a request to restore that time-limit.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?
In particular:
Did the applicant enjoy a practical and effective defence as regards his appeal to the Court of Cassation?
If not, were the relevant authorities under a duty to take steps to ensure practical and effective respect for the applicant’s right to due process (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑‑II; and Czekalla v. Portugal, no. 38830/97, §§ 60, and 65-71, ECHR 2002-VIII)?
The parties are requested to clarify whether G.M. had been appointed by the Public Defender’s Office or was a lawyer of the applicant’s own choosing and to submit the copies of relevant documents in that connection, if such are available.