CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 novembre 2010

.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 } .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. 135 November 2010 Bachowski v. Poland (dec.) - 32463/06 Decision 2.11.2010 [Section IV] Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 New or newly discovered facts Compensation following reversal of a criminal conviction in the light of a change in political regime: inadmissible   Facts – In 1959 the applicant was convicted of the “dissemination of false information” and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for circulating leaflets criticising the Soviet Union’s domination of Poland. In 2001 his conviction was reversed following a cassation appeal brought by the Ombudsman on his behalf. In those proceedings the Supreme Court held that the applicant had not committed the offence of which he had been convicted and that his conviction had been based on an unacceptable interpretation and application of the substantive criminal law. In 2004 a regional court awarded him compensation. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the level of that award, which he considered too low. Law – Article 3 of Protocol No.   7: The Court concurred with the conclusions of the domestic courts overturning the applicant’s conviction. It would be incompatible with both the tenets of the rule of law and respect for human rights if a criminal conviction manifestly motivated by the goals of an oppressive political regime remained valid after the convicted person requested to have it reversed in accordance with the applicable provisions of domestic law. However, the applicant’s acquittal was the result of a reassessment by the Supreme Court of the evidence which had already been used and was known to the court in 1959, not of new facts. In this context, the Court noted the statements in the Explanatory Report that Article   3 of Protocol No.   7 was applicable only when the original conviction had been reversed because of a new or newly discovered fact showing conclusively that in the original proceedings there had been a serious failure in the judicial process. This indicated that it was the intention of the drafters to delineate the scope of the application of Article   3 of Protocol No.   7 in a narrow manner, with the right to compensation being excluded in respect of reversals of conviction that were based on some other ground than that related to new or newly discovered facts. Therefore, the circumstances of the case did not fall within the scope of Article   3 of Protocol No.   7. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © 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