The obligation of the courts to investigate in depth the defendants’ arguments in the context of the fair trial principle
JUDGMENT
Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria 13-07-2017 (no. 7202/09)
SUMMARY
Counterfeit bank notes. Allegations of the accused. No response to the allegations. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the courts did not address his case fairly in the course of the criminal proceedings against him.
In 2008, Mr Genov was convicted of having counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the banknotes after March 2005 (when their possession was criminalized), and evidence was provided during the trial proving that Mr Genov had acquired the illegal dollars before the time when he had been criminalized for possession of counterfeit currencies .
Mr Genov complained before the ECtHR that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his allegation that he had not proved that he had committed the offense while this was illegal. The Court found that the Convention had been violated.
PROVISION
Article 6 § 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). The case concerned his complaint that the courts had failed to consider his case fairly during criminal proceedings against him.
In 2008 Mr Genov was convicted for having acquired counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the notes at some time between March 2005 (when such possession was first criminalised) and January 2007 (when the notes were found in a search of his house). However, at trial, evidence had been given suggesting that Mr Genov had acquired US dollars in 2002 (before the possession of counterfeit notes was criminalised), and also in subsequent years. Mr Genov appealed his conviction, claiming that it had never been established that he had taken possession of the counterfeit notes at a time when this had been a criminal offence. However, both of his appeals were dismissed.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Genov complained that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had carried out the offence at a time when it had been unlawful.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: 2,400 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses (echrcaselaw.com editing).
