Published on 19 February 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 13462/18
Arman YERITSYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 7 March 2018
communicated on 31 January 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged lack of practical and effective legal assistance by a public defence counsel appointed to the applicant in the criminal proceedings against him.
The applicant was charged with aggravated robbery. Since he did not have sufficient financial means to hire a lawyer, he was provided with two public defence counsels, A.A. and V.M. (“public defenders” as referred to in the national legislation) who interchangeably represented him.
In 2014 the applicant was acquitted by the trial court. Upon the prosecution’s appeal, the Criminal Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and sent the case back to the trial court for a new examination. The appeal on points of law lodged by A.A. against this decision was declared inadmissible for lack of merit.
Upon the fresh examination of the case the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 6 years of imprisonment (of which he still had to serve three years and seven months). By a decision of 23 June 2017 the Criminal Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against this judgment. On 30 June 2017 A.A. submitted an appeal on points of law against the appellate court’s decision. However, he did not attach a copy of the latter, as required by law. In the appeal A.A. indicated that the contested decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal had not been received by the parties yet; neither had it been available on the judicial acts’ official online database and argued that the Court of Cassation should grant leave for appeal since the lower courts had made a prima facie judicial error that could have affected the outcome of the proceedings. On 20 September 2017 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit on the grounds that it had not been substantiated in the appeal that there had been a prima facie judicial error that could have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to effective legal assistance to appeal against his conviction because A.A. failed to familiarise himself with the reasoning of the appellate court before lodging an appeal on points of law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Were the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, can it be said that the applicant benefited from practical and effective legal assistance by his public defence counsel in relation to his appeal on points of law against the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal of 23 June 2017, whereby his conviction had been upheld?
If not, can the State be held responsible for any inadequacies or mistakes in the conduct of the applicant’s defence attributable to his public defence counsel (see, for example, Czekalla v. Portugal, no. 38830/97, §§ 59-71, ECHR 2002-VIII)?