CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 30 April 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 31029/15 Andreas LOIZIDES against Cyprus lodged on 16 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence in criminal appeal proceedings (no. 145/2013) in which he challenged his conviction by the Larnaca Assize Court for the offence of causing death by a reason of a rash, reckless or dangerous act and his sentence of two years’ imprisonment. On 19 December 2014 the Supreme Court (twelve-judge panel) came to a tie: six judges dismissed his appeal and six judges upheld it. In a separate announcement made that same day the Supreme Court explained that the applicant’s appeal was dismissed and his conviction upheld as he had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Assize Court’s judgment had been erroneous. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of Convention that (i) the Supreme Court’s internal regulation allows for a court with a composition of an even number of judges, depriving the court of the power to reach a decision; and (ii) according to the domestic law (section 27(2) of the Courts of Justice Law, no.14/1960, as amended) where the court is composed of an even number of judges, the judgment shall be rendered against the party bearing the burden of proof. In light of the above, the applicant also complains of a breach of the right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. He complains that the burden of proof in his criminal case was reversed and that in the event of a tie, the principle of the presumption of innocence should have applied in his favour, or at least that the President of the Supreme Court should have had a casting vote. The applicant further complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that in light of the foregoing he was also deprived of the right to have his conviction reviewed, or reviewed fairly by the Supreme Court, acting as a court of appeal. Lastly, the applicant complains of the lack of an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of all of the above complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 19 December 2014 did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal consequent on a tied vote, in breach of his rights of access to court? (see, mutatis mutandis , Avdić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos.   28357/11 and 2 others, 19 November 2013   and Marini v. Albania , no.   3738/02, 18 December 2007)?   2. Was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   7?   3.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 6 § 2, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?