Case Law

The Case Law database provides access to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports), the Committee of Ministers (resolutions), and the Court of Justice of the European Union.


CASE DATE:
Thursday, 16 Jul 2015
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage, Just satisfaction)
  • SUBJECT MATTER:

    (Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Degrading treatment (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general} (Art. 41) Just satisfaction (Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage


    DETAIL:

    The applicants complained that if it had not been for the undercover police agent’s insistence, the first applicant would not have procured and sold the drugs and the second applicant would not have been compelled to help his brother out with the deal. They further complained that they could not obtain an expert evaluation of the drugs by an independent body; they argued that so long as the laboratories were subordinate to the police, which was an interested party in the case, the principle of equality of arms was breached. They also considered that there had been an interference with their defence rights in so far as the courts had excluded from the file most of the CDs containing the recordings of their conversations, without hearing them first and without allowing their lawyer to assess their utility for the defence. The second applicant added that he had discovered a conversation between his brother and the undercover police agent which could have proved that he had not been involved in the drug trafficking. The second applicant lastly complained that the court of appeal had denied him the right to study the case file.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 6, 6-1, 41

JUSTICIA European Rights Network