Sentence to detention for the offense of contempt of the court
JUDGMENT
Mikhaylova v. Ukraine 6.3.2018 (no. 10644/08)
SUMMARY
The applicant told the Judge who chaired “I do not know any case where you have made a lawful decision” and that “the law does not mean anything for you.” She was referred to trial for contempt of court and sentenced by another judge to a 5-day administrative detention.
The ECtHR held that the detention order for the offense in question was excessive, violated its freedom of expression, had no fair trial, and the court that sentenced it was not impartial, and no time was given to prepare the defense. She also had no opportunity to review her case before a higher court. Infringement of Articles 6 (1) and (3), 10 and 2 of Protocol No. 7
PROVISIONS
Article 6 § 1
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3
Article 10
Article 2 of Protocol n. 7
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Olena Mikhaylova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Nova Kakhovka (Ukraine).
The case concerned her conviction for contempt of court.
Ms Mikhaylova, who is not a lawyer, was involved in litigation with the local municipal utilities company either as a party or as a representative. On 1 June 2007, at a preliminary hearing in a case concerning utilities arrears, she challenged the presiding judge’s impartiality and told her, among other things, that “I know of no case where you have given a lawful decision” and “the law will mean absolutely nothing to you”.
The presiding judge adjourned the hearing and, within the next hour, an administrative offence report was drawn up for contempt of court, the case was transmitted to another judge and a hearing was held. Having examined Ms Mikhaylova and the evidence in the report, the judge found her guilty as charged and sentenced her to five days’ administrative detention, which she served immediately.
Ms Mikhaylova made a number of complaints, in particular under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial). She complained, inter alia, that there had been no party for the prosecution at the hearing on her case, meaning that the judge who had convicted her for contempt of court had to assume this role, thus undermining her impartiality. She further alleged that she had not been given time to prepare her defence.
She also complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that sentencing her to detention had been excessive and had breached her freedom of expression. Lastly, relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), she complained that Ukrainian law had not provided for a right of appeal in administrative-offence proceedings.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal)
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) – in that Ms Mikhaylova was not afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence
Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,200 (costs and expenses) (echrcaselaw.com editing).