## European Convention on Human Rights: Key Cases in Criminal Law These notes summarize key European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases relevant to criminal law, focusing on Articles 3, 5, 6, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ### Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial #### Determining Applicability of Article 6 Remember that Article 6 only applies to "criminal charges". The **Engels criteria** help determine if a matter is criminal in nature: 1. **Classification under national law:** Is the offense defined as criminal under domestic law? 2. **Nature of the offense:** Does the offense involve a breach of public order or morality? 3. **Nature and severity of the sanction:** Is the penalty sufficiently serious to be considered criminal? A minor traffic violation might not meet the Engels criteria, while a serious fraud case clearly would. **Key Case:** *Ozturk v. Turkey* illustrates the application of the Engels criteria. #### Reasonable Time for Proceedings Failing to consider all relevant factors when assessing "reasonable time" is a common mistake. **Key Case:** *Venditteli v. Italy* establishes criteria for assessing "reasonable time": 1. **Start of the relevant time period:** When did the proceedings effectively begin? 2. **Criteria:** * Complexity of the case * Conduct of the applicant (did they delay proceedings?) * Conduct of the state (were there undue delays by authorities?) * What was at stake for the applicant? Consider the complexity of the case, the actions of both the applicant and the state, and the impact on the applicant when evaluating "reasonable time". #### Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental right under Article 6. **Key Case:** *Saunders v. UK* clarifies the scope of the privilege: It only applies to evidence *dependent on the will of the suspect*. For example, DNA evidence is admissible even without consent, as its existence is independent of the suspect's will. **Key Case:** *Jalloh v. Germany* outlines criteria for assessing breaches related to self-incrimination: 1. Nature and degree of compulsion 2. Existence of relevant safeguards 3. Use to which obtained material is put 4. Public interest Consider the level of coercion, the protections in place, the intended use of the evidence, and the overall public interest when evaluating potential breaches. ### Article 5: Right to Liberty and Security #### Promptness of Trial **Key Case:** *Brogan v. UK* defines "promptly" in the context of pre-trial detention: Any detention exceeding 4 days is generally not considered prompt, with no exceptions. #### Reasonable Time for Pre-Trial Detention **Key Case:** *Letellier v. France* sets out criteria for assessing reasonable time for pre-trial detention: 1. Time spent in pre-trial detention 2. Reasonable suspicion and sufficient grounds for continued detention (criteria include pressure on witnesses, risk of absconding, court supervision, and public order). The length of detention must be balanced against the justification for continued detention. ### Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life Article 8 has a broad interpretation of "private life". **Key Cases:** *Niemietz v. Germany* and *Khan v. UK* highlight the broad interpretation of "private life" and establish a two-part test for interference: 1. Does the interference fall under the scope of Article 8(1)? 2. Was the interference: * In accordance with the law (accessible and foreseeable) * Necessary in a democratic society * In the interest of a legitimate aim ### Article 3: Prohibition of Torture **Key Case:** *Gafgen v. Germany* establishes that assessing torture depends on all circumstances, including: 1. Duration of treatment 2. Physical and mental effects 3. Sex, age, and health of the victim 4. Intention behind the treatment Focusing solely on the outcome, rather than the totality of circumstances, when assessing Article 3 violations is a common error. ### Article 6(3): Rights of the Accused #### Right to a Lawyer **Key Case:** *Salduz v. Turkey* establishes the right to access a lawyer from the initial stages of interrogation, with exceptions only for "compelling reasons". **Key Case:** *Allan v. UK* prohibits the use of evidence obtained through methods functionally equivalent to police interrogation without the suspect's awareness of being interrogated by an official authority. This includes the use of undercover agents or police agents. #### Reclassification of Charges **Key Cases:** *Salvador Torres v. Spain* and *Pélissier and Sassi v. France* address the right to be informed of changes in charges. A change is acceptable if the new charge is intrinsically linked to the original accusation. #### Right to be Present at Trial **Key Case:** *Colozza v. Italy*: The right to be present at trial must be balanced against public interest and the interests of justice. The accused must be aware of the proceedings. #### Right to Legal Assistance **Key Case:** *Lala v. the Netherlands*: Even if a defendant voluntarily waives their right to appear, they retain the right to legal representation. #### Use of Witness Statements in Absence of Witness **Key Cases:** *Schatschaschwili v. Germany* (and *Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. UK*) establishes a three-step test for assessing the admissibility of witness statements when the witness is absent: 1. Was there a good reason for the absence? 2. Does the statement form sole or decisive evidence? 3. Are there sufficient counterbalancing factors (procedural safeguards) to ensure a fair assessment of the reliability of the evidence? The order of these steps is crucial in applying the test. ### Article 4: Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour **Key Case:** *Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia* establishes that human trafficking falls under Article 4 and outlines the positive obligations of states: 1. **Obligation to protect:** Protect rights holders from third-party interference and punish perpetrators. 2. **Obligation to implement:** Take specific measures to fully realize and effect the rights. 3. **Obligation to respect:** State organs must not commit violations themselves. ### Article 6(1): Impartiality of the Court **Key Case:** *De Cubber v. Belgium* establishes a two-pronged test for impartiality: 1. **Subjective:** Evidence of personal bias. 2. **Objective:** Assessment of the tribunal's structure and processes to ensure the absence of legitimate doubt regarding impartiality. #### Plea Bargaining **Key Case:** *Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia* sets minimum safeguards for plea bargaining, requiring: 1. Full awareness of facts and legal consequences, and genuine voluntariness. 2. Sufficient judicial review of the bargain's content and fairness. #### Right to be Present at Appeal **Key Case:** *Kremzow v. Austria* clarifies the right to be present at appeal: Presence is required for appeals on facts or sentence, but not necessarily for appeals on points of law if legal counsel is present.