In 2001, a Limassol Assize Court convicted a man of homicide and robbery. The court imposed concurrent sentences of 14 and 6 years. The man served about seven and a half years, including remand time, until a presidential pardon freed him in 2007.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in 2009 that authorities violated Article 6 guarantees. Violations included the absence of legal assistance during initial police questioning, the trial court’s admission of a confession obtained in those circumstances, and its handling of a defence counsel conflict.
The applicant neither sought just satisfaction from the ECHR nor requested a retrial. Instead, he sued the Republic of Cyprus for damages in the Nicosia District Court.
District Court Ruling
The District Court awarded him €10,000 in fair trial compensation. Judges based the decision on the principle that a proven fundamental rights violation creates a direct claim for damages.
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Republic contested the claim’s validity and the amount. The applicant demanded more compensation under Article 172 of the Constitution and a larger sum.
Supreme Court on ECHR Findings
The Supreme Court first examined whether the applicant could pursue national damages without claiming them in Strasbourg. Precedent already resolved this issue: res judicata applies only if the ECHR rules on compensation. The Court rejected the Republic’s argument here.
The Court then addressed a core question: must national courts accept ECHR violation findings as facts, or does the claimant need to prove them anew? The Attorney General advocated fresh proof. However, the Supreme Court disagreed.
Judges stressed that Article 46 of the Convention binds states to ECHR judgments. The Convention holds supra-legislative status in Cyprus, and Article 13 ensures an effective remedy. Requiring re-proof would render that remedy illusory.
The Court also cited Law 23(I)/2015, which treats ECHR findings as established facts. Thus, the District Court correctly accepted the violation without additional evidence.
Constitutional Liability and Damages
On Article 172, which makes the Republic liable for organ acts, the District Court attributed harm solely to judicial decisions. The Supreme Court viewed the primary violations as police actions; lack of legal aid during interrogation.
The Republic bears objective liability for these. Yet, no evidence showed the applicant would avoid conviction without the confession or succeed on appeal. His convictions remain valid.
This factor limited damages. The applicant claimed compensation for his entire imprisonment. The Supreme Court explained that full detention damages apply only when courts quash a conviction, making imprisonment retrospectively unlawful.
Here, convictions stand. Compensation covers only non-pecuniary harm from the fair trial breach. Judges deemed €10,000 reasonable and declined to increase it.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Republic’s appeal entirely. It also rejected the applicant’s additional claims.
The ruling affirms that ECHR findings bind national courts on violation existence. However, damages remain constrained when criminal convictions endure.
The €10,000 fair trial compensation award stands as the recognised remedy.
Also read:
Subscribe to our Youtube channel for the latest updates.
