Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant lodged an appeal after the pronouncement of his conviction decision (oral pronouncement of the decision to the parties during the hearing), stating that the first instance decision was unlawful and that he would provide a detailed explanation as to the reasons for his appeal request upon the notification of the reasoned decision. The first instance court, despite being aware of the applicant’s request for an appeal, communicated the case-file to the Regional Court of Appeal without the reasoned decision being notified to the applicant. Thereby, the applicant, the accused of the proceedings, was deprived of the opportunity to submit the justified reasons underlying his appeal request. The Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the merits.

The Applicant’s Allegations                                                  

The applicant claimed that his right to have the necessary time and facilities for his defence had been violated as his case file had been communicated to the appellate authority without the reasoned decision being notified to him.

The Court’s Assessment

The applicant was convicted of fraud, and the succinct decision was pronounced during the hearing in his presence. He was not provided with any explanation as to the reasoning of his conviction decision.

In the present case, the case-file was communicated to the Regional Court of Appeal without the reasoned decision being notified to the applicant, as well as any detailed reason for the appeal request being submitted by him. Therefore, the applicant could not raise his reasons for lodging an appeal.

The applicant, in respect of whom the prescribed time-limit for an appeal started running from the date of pronouncement of the decision, could not duly exercise the right to file an appeal on points of fact and law against his conviction decision for not knowing its reasoning. He should necessarily have been aware of the grounds underlying his punishment in order to adduce evidence capable of ensuring his acquittal or granting a remission of sentence. Therefore, the failure to notify the reasoned decision, one of the essential documents of the proceedings, to the applicant gave rise to a violation in the present case.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to have the necessary time and facilities for defence safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution.