The inadmissibility of the appeal, unrelated to the accused’s fault, affects the principle of fair trial and invalidates access to a court.
JUDGMENT
Shuli v. Greece 13-07-2017 (no. 71891/10)
SUMMARY
Fair trial. Access to court. Formalistic rejection of appeal by the Five-Member Court of Appeal of Nafplion. The accused filled a pre-printed appeal. Failure to indicate specific grounds of appeal for in the appeal. Formalist rejection of an appeal as unacceptable hinders access to a court. Condemnation of Greece for violation of article 6, par 1.
Procedural rules. Ways of implementation. When applying procedural rules, national courts must avoid both excessive formalism, which affects the fairness of the procedure and excessive flexibility, which would result in the annulment of procedural requirements laid down by law. The right of access to justice is degraded when the rule becomes a form of obstacle preventing the party from adjudicating on the merits of the matter by the competent court
PROVISION
Article 6 § 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Astrit Shuli, is an Albanian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Portoheli (Greece). He complained that he had been unfairly denied the opportunity to have his appeal considered by a court. In September 2007 Mr Shuli was convicted of various crimes by the Nafplio three-judge Court of Appeal. Following the delivery of the judgment, Mr Shuli expressed his wish to appeal. He was escorted in handcuffs to the registry of the court, where the registrar completed a pre-printed appeal form with his personal details, and Mr Shuli was briefly released from handcuffs in order to sign it. When the appeal came before the five-member Appeal Court, it was held inadmissible on the grounds that it had not included any reasons. Mr Shuli complained that this ruling had violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 (access to court), as he had been prevented from lodging an appeal due to the way the pre-filled form provided to him by the registry was formulated (rather than due to any fault of his own), and because the inadmissibility ruling had been disproportionate.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 7,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage
