The deprivation of an accused of the appeal violates the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Rostovtsev v. Ukraine 25-07-2017 (no. 2728/16)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he was not allowed to appeal against the conviction with regard to possession of drugs.
Based on Article 2 of the 7th Protocol (right to double jurisdiction in criminal matters), Mr Rostovtsev complained that he had been deprived of the right to appeal against the decision in his criminal case. In particular, he argued that he could not foresee that by recognizing the facts as presented during the trial, he was waiving the possibility of appealing against his conviction.
The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7
PROVISION
Article 2, of Protocol 7.
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Oleksandr Rostovtsev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Kyiv. The case concerned his complaint that he had not been allowed to appeal his conviction for drug possession.
During the course of his trial in 2015 on charges of unlawful purchase and possession of narcotics, Mr Rostovtsev, who was not represented by counsel, admitted to having purchased a narcotic-like pain reliever for his own use because he had not been feeling well. The trial court, interpreting this as an unqualified guilty plea, convicted him as charged and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. Mr Rostovtsev appealed his conviction, arguing that at trial he had admitted only to the facts alleged by the prosecutor but had not agreed with their legal classification. He argued that his acts should have been classified as a breach of the regulation for the purchase and circulation of drugs, a crime which is punishable by a lesser sentence. His appeal was however dismissed because the law which allows for uncontested circumstances to go unexamined also states that, once the parties agree to the circumstances, they cannot be appealed.
Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), Mr Rostovtsev complained that he had been deprived of the right to appeal against the judgment in his criminal case. In particular, he argued that he could not have foreseen that, by admitting to facts as established during his trial, he had been forgoing the possibility of appealing against his conviction.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by Rostovtsev(echrcaselaw.com editing).
