003-4668645-5658571

WyrokETPCz2014-02-13

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy skazanie skarżącego, który nie miał możliwości stawienia się na rozprawach z powodu złego stanu zdrowia, naruszyło jego prawo do rzetelnego procesu sądowego, w szczególności prawo do obrony, zgodnie z art. 6 ust. 1 i 3 lit. c Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie prawa do rzetelnego procesu sądowego, uznając, że skarżący nie miał możliwości stawienia się na rozprawach w swojej sprawie z powodu złego stanu zdrowia. To uniemożliwiło mu skuteczne korzystanie z prawa do obrony, co doprowadziło do niesprawiedliwego skazania.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżący, Stipe Petrina, obywatel Chorwacji, został oskarżony w marcu 2003 r. o usiłowanie ciężkiego uszkodzenia ciała. W grudniu 2007 r. został uznany za winnego i skazany na cztery miesiące pozbawienia wolności w zawieszeniu na rok. Wyrok ten został podtrzymany w październiku 2008 r., a jego skarga konstytucyjna została oddalona w kwietniu 2010 r. Skarżący skarżył się, że jego skazanie było niesprawiedliwe, ponieważ nie miał możliwości stawienia się na rozprawach z powodu złego stanu zdrowia.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 i 3 lit. c Konwencji. Zasądził na rzecz skarżącego 4 000 EUR tytułem szkody niemajątkowej oraz 3 300 EUR tytułem kosztów i wydatków.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 044 (2014) 13.02.2014 Judgments concerning Croatia and Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three judgments, of which two (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The other is a Chamber judgment1 and is not final. Repetitive cases2, with the Court's main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. These judgments are available only in English. The Court has also delivered today a judgment in the case of Tali v. Estonia (application no. 66393/10), for which a separate press release has been issued. Petrina v. Croatia (application no. 31379/10) The applicant, Stipe Petrina, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Primosten. The case concerned Mr Petrina's complaint about the unfairness of his conviction of attempted grievous bodily harm. He was indicted of the charges in March 2003, found guilty in December 2007 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for one year. This first-instance judgment was upheld in October 2008 and his constitutional complaint was dismissed in April 2010. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Petrina complained notably that his conviction had been unfair since he had not had an opportunity to appear at the hearings on his case due to ill-health. The Government contended that Mr Petrina had had every opportunity to attend hearings and considered that he was attempting to delay the proceedings in order that his prosecution become time-barred. Violation of Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,300 (costs and expenses) Repetitive cases The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court. Shchukin and Others v. Ukraine (no. 59834/09 and 249 other applications) Vasilyev and Others v. Ukraine (no. 29266/08 and 248 other applications) The above cases concerned the applicants' complaints about the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions given in their favour with regard to labour disputes and the lack of effective remedies at national level in respect of those complaints. They relied on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article 6 � 1� in both cases, as regards the applicants' complaints under Article 6 � 1 which were declared admissible 1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment's delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution 2 In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 � in both cases, as regards the applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which were declared admissible Violation of Article 13 � in both cases, as regards the applicants' complaints under Article 13 which were declared admissible This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2