Refusal to examine evidence by the court affects the right of defense and violates the fair trial
JUDGMENT
Poropat v. Slovenia 9-5-2017 (no. 21668/12)
SUMMARY
The refusal of the courts: (a) to examine a witness despite the persistent request of the accused; and (b) to oblige the claimant to produce video, claiming that 12 cameras were present in the event, violated the defendant’s right of defense and his right to examine witnesses and evidence.
PROVISION
Article 6 § 1
Article 6 § 3 (δ)
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Marino Poropat, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Portorož (Slovenia). The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against him by his neighbour.
Mr Poropat has been in conflict with his neighbour for several years, with both sides instituting a number of legal proceedings against one another. In February 2004 the neighbour, R.H., lodged a criminal complaint, alleging that Mr Poropat had threatened to kill him in front of their house.
Mr Poropat was ultimately convicted in July 2009 on the basis of testimonies given by R.H. as well as by the latter’s colleague, who testified that R.H. had told him about the incident. Mr Poropat was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, suspended.
Throughout the proceedings Mr Poropat denied that the incident had ever taken place and, in his defence, argued that neither R.H. nor his colleague could be believed. In particular, he repeatedly requested that a long term friend of R.H. be examined as a witness because he could testify to the fact that R.H. had been influencing witnesses against him. The trial court refused this request on the grounds that the facts had been sufficiently established and that, in any event, the proposed witness could not testify directly about the incident leading to the charges. This argument was endorsed by the courts at all subsequent levels of jurisdiction, including the courts dealing with an – unsuccessful – attempt by Mr Poropat to reopen the criminal proceedings. Mr Poropat also repeatedly criticised, to no avail, the failure to obtain video footage of the incident, despite R.H. having admitted in court that there were about a dozen cameras installed in and around their house.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), Mr Poropat complained that his defence rights had not been respected in the proceedings against him because of the refusal to admit evidence he had wished to have introduced.
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)
