Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14

January 2000

Pesti and Frodle v. Austria (dec.) - 27618/95 and 27619/95

Decision 18.1.2000 [Section III]

Article 2 of Protocol No. 7

Review of conviction

Possibility of lodging a plea of nullity against decision of conviction: inadmissible

The two applicants were remanded in custody on suspicion of murder. They were suspected of having lured a professional rival of the second applicant to Budapest using a young woman as a decoy and of having killed him before disposing of his body by cutting it into pieces. The second applicant confessed to the murder to the police and the first applicant admitted having helped him in g etting rid of the body. They were both charged with murder. The Assize Court sentenced the second applicant to life imprisonment for murder and the first applicant to twenty years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting. The applicants filed separate pleas o f nullity with the Supreme Court to complain about various procedural defects. The first applicant complained, inter alia , that the presiding judge had interrupted him during his last statement to the jury and the second argued notably that the court had r efused to take evidence he wanted to submit. They both also lodged appeals with the Supreme Court to contest their sentences. The Supreme Court rejected the pleas on the basis of the trial transcripts which did not corroborate their complaints. The Supreme Court also dismissed their appeals, confirming the second applicant’s sentence and increasing the first applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment.

Inadmissible under Article 2 of Protocol N° 7: The Contracting States may limit the scope of review by a hig her tribunal. Such a review may be limited to questions of law or may require the person wishing to appeal to apply for leave to do so. In the present case, the applicants could and did file a plea of nullity with the Supreme Court in which they complained about procedural defects in their trial. Furthermore, they lodged an appeal against sentence which was also examined by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the review of the applicants’ convictions by the Supreme Court was sufficient: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes