CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juillet 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110 July 2008 Matveyev v. Russia - 26601/02 Judgment 3.7.2008 [Section I] Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 Compensation Inability to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage following quashing of criminal convictions in the absence of a “new or newly discovered fact”: unable to take cognisance of merits (incompatibility ratione materiae)   Article 35 Article 35-3 Ratione temporis Entry into force of Protocol to Convention after conviction but before conviction quashed: jurisdiction ratione temporis   Facts : The applicant was convicted of forging a prepaid postal stamp and using it to send personal correspondence free of charge. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, which he served. His conviction was later quashed under the supervisory-review procedure by the presidium of a regional court, which found that the stamp used by the applicant was in fact invalid under the relevant legislation and so could not have been used to obtain a profit unlawfully. The applicant made a successful claim for compensation for pecuniary damage, but his claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was dismissed as there was no provision in domestic law at the time permitting such a claim to be made. Law : (a)     Jurisdiction rationae temporis: Since the aim of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 was to confer the right to compensation on persons convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice where such conviction had been reversed by the domestic courts, the relevant date for determining the Court’s jurisdiction rationae temporis was the date the conviction was quashed, not the date of the conviction. Accordingly the Court had jurisdiction in the applicant’s case as, although he had been convicted before the Protocol entered into force in respect of Russia, his conviction was only set aside afterwards. (b)     Applicability : As the Explanatory Report to Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 made clear, the nature of the procedure used to quash the conviction was immaterial. The Explanatory Report also confirmed that that provision applied only where the conviction had been reversed on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact showed conclusively that there had been a miscarriage of justice, so that there was no requirement to pay compensation if the conviction had been reversed or a pardon granted on some other ground. The applicant’s conviction was quashed on the ground that the postal stamp was no longer valid at the material time and could not have been used to obtain a profit unlawfully. From the evidence, both he and the trial court had been aware of the content of the price list indicating that the postal stamp the applicant had sought to use was no longer valid. Accordingly, the conviction had not been quashed with regard to “a new or newly discovered fact”, but owing to a reassessment by the regional-court presidium of the evidence that had been used at the trial. It followed that the conditions of applicability had not been complied with. Conclusion : unable to take cognisance of merits (unanimously).   © 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