Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55

July 2003

Sigurþór Arnarsson v. Iceland - 44671/98

Judgment 15.7.2003 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Conviction on appeal by prosecution, on the basis of an assessment of the evidence by the Supreme Court, without hearing the accused in person: violation

Facts : The applicant was charged in connection with the death of another man during a brawl in a night-club. The District Court, after hearing both the co-accused and a number of witnesses, whose accounts varied greatly, acquitted the applicant, considering that it had not been established that he had kicked the deceased on the hea d. The prosecution appealed. The Supreme Court, after hearing the prosecution and the applicant’s lawyer, but without hearing the applicant himself or any witnesses, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to two years and three months’ imprisonment. It relied on transcripts of the proceedings before the District Court and the documents submitted in those proceedings.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – The issue to be determined was whether the Supreme Court’s omission to take oral statements from the applicant and wit nesses before overturning his acquittal was incompatible with his right to a fair and public hearing. The fact that the Supreme Court was empowered to overturn an acquittal by the District Court without hearing the accused and witnesses in person did not i tself infringe that right but it had to be considered whether, in the light of the Supreme Court’s role and the nature of the issues to be decided, there had been a violation in the particular circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court had full jurisdict ion to examine questions of law and fact and the issues to be determined by it in deciding on the applicant’s criminal liability were predominantly factual in nature. Having regard to what was at stake for the applicant, those issues could not have been ex amined properly without a direct assessment of the evidence given by him in person and by certain witnesses. Moreover, in the light of domestic law, the applicant could reasonably have expected the Supreme Court to summon him and the witnesses to give oral evidence if it were minded to overturn his acquittal on the basis of a different assessment of the evidence. Having regard to the entirety of the proceedings, there were no special features to justify the failure of the Supreme Court to hear the applicant and witnesses directly. Moreover, the Supreme Court was under a duty to take positive measures to that effect.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made a n award in respect of costs and expenses.

© 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