Criminal Law – Part B Case Law
Week 1
- Özturk v Germany – Art 6 (3) (e) - Right of Fair Trial – To have free assistance of an Interpreter.
o Facts
Mr. Özturk is a Turkish citizen that possesses a German driving license. He crashes into another car. Because of this he is given an
administrative fine. In court he is made to pay for his interpreter because he did not speak German. He appeals the costs of the
Interpreter to the Court.
o Issue
Mr. Özturk complained that:
He had to pay for his interpreter which was a violation of Art. 6 (3) (e) ECHR.
German government said that Mr. Özturk was not involved in a criminal proceeding therefore Art. 6 ECHR did not apply.
o Court’s Assessment
The court applied the ENGELS CRITERIA to determine if the offence was criminal in nature.
Did the text defining the offence belong, according to the legal system of the state in question to criminal law?
o The court said that whilst the offence fell under the Road Traffic Act, and it was established as a “regulatory offence”
there was no absolute partition between German Criminal Law and “regulatory offences”. This was because
administrative authorities could remit the case to the public prosecutor if there was any indication that a criminal
act had been committed. Furthermore, criminal procedural law applies by analogy to “regulatory proceedings”.
Nature of the offence
o The court found that the nature of the offence was criminal because the purpose of German law was made to deter
and punish this type of behaviour, which is characteristic of criminal law.
Nature and degree of severity of the penalty imposed.
o Offence in question was a minor offence and given that the penalty imposed wasn’t that serious, this did not mean
the offence in question diverged from its inherent criminal character. Imprisonment and high level of severity can
is a high characteristic of a criminal charge.
o Conclusion
There was a violation of Art. 6 (3) (e) ECHR.
,Criminal Law – Part B Case Law
- Venditelli v Italy – Art. 6 – Right of Fair Trial – “… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time…”
o Facts
Mr. Venditelli flat was seized by the authorities because he violated town planning regulations. A trial was set but postponed several
times and his appeals were adjourned.
o Issue
Mr. Venditelli complained that:
The length of the proceedings was unreasonable and that there was a violation of art. 6(1) ECHR.
o Court’s assessment
The court applied the criteria to analyse if the proceedings were of an unreasonable time:
Complexity of the case
o The court found that the case was not particularly complex.
Conduct of the applicant (Did he delay it?)
o The applicant delayed the proceedings by seeking adjournment in the court of appeals.
Conduct of the authorities (Did they delay it?)
o The court found that it took the authorities eleven months to present the notifications, however Mr. Venditelli was
present when the notifications were delivered, and he could’ve obtained a copy of the judgement.
o Note: Criminal proceedings make trials longer because of the investigations.
What is at stake for the applicant.
The court also took into consideration the period of the proceedings:
The date when the charge was filled.
Date of the final judgement.
o Conclusion
There was no violation of Art. 6 (1) ECHR.
, Criminal Law – Part B Case Law
Week 2
- Letellier v France – Art 5(3) ECHR – Right to Liberty and Security – “Everyone arrested or detained (…) shall be entitled to a trial within reasonable
time…) – Art. 5 (4) ECHR – “… lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court…”
o Facts
Mrs. Letellier pays two man to kill her husband. She admitted having seen the weapon and she said that she wanted her husband
dead. She was caught and was arrested and re-arrested as she filled several times for release. She remained in detention for a total
of 2 years and 9 months.
o Issue
Mrs. Letellier complained that:
The time she stayed in pre-trial detention was too lengthy and it violated her rights under Art. 5(3) and (4) EHCR.
o Court’s assessment – Art. 5 (3)
The court took the period in consideration from the time she remained in custody to the time of judgment of the national court.
The Criteria used by the court to determine the reasonableness of length of detention.
Persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested committed a crime.
Risk of pressure upon the witness
o Mrs. Letellier could have pressured the other witnesses of the case (The men she paid to kill her husband). The court
said that initially this risk existed but with the passing of time it diminished and disappeared eventually.
Danger of absconding (running away)
o The court found that Mrs. Letelier was in no danger of absconding because she had complied with her court
obligations. Furthermore, it would have been difficult for her since she was the mother of children and manager of a
business as the only source of income.
Inadequacy of court supervision
o Mrs. Letellier cooperated with the court on matters of supervision. The court said that the suspect must be release if
he can provide guarantees that he will not abscond (for example, by lodging security).
Preservation of public order
o The court said that this argument was unfounded because authorities needed to provide a concrete reason that the
release of Mrs. Letellier would indeed cause a public disorder.
Week 1
- Özturk v Germany – Art 6 (3) (e) - Right of Fair Trial – To have free assistance of an Interpreter.
o Facts
Mr. Özturk is a Turkish citizen that possesses a German driving license. He crashes into another car. Because of this he is given an
administrative fine. In court he is made to pay for his interpreter because he did not speak German. He appeals the costs of the
Interpreter to the Court.
o Issue
Mr. Özturk complained that:
He had to pay for his interpreter which was a violation of Art. 6 (3) (e) ECHR.
German government said that Mr. Özturk was not involved in a criminal proceeding therefore Art. 6 ECHR did not apply.
o Court’s Assessment
The court applied the ENGELS CRITERIA to determine if the offence was criminal in nature.
Did the text defining the offence belong, according to the legal system of the state in question to criminal law?
o The court said that whilst the offence fell under the Road Traffic Act, and it was established as a “regulatory offence”
there was no absolute partition between German Criminal Law and “regulatory offences”. This was because
administrative authorities could remit the case to the public prosecutor if there was any indication that a criminal
act had been committed. Furthermore, criminal procedural law applies by analogy to “regulatory proceedings”.
Nature of the offence
o The court found that the nature of the offence was criminal because the purpose of German law was made to deter
and punish this type of behaviour, which is characteristic of criminal law.
Nature and degree of severity of the penalty imposed.
o Offence in question was a minor offence and given that the penalty imposed wasn’t that serious, this did not mean
the offence in question diverged from its inherent criminal character. Imprisonment and high level of severity can
is a high characteristic of a criminal charge.
o Conclusion
There was a violation of Art. 6 (3) (e) ECHR.
,Criminal Law – Part B Case Law
- Venditelli v Italy – Art. 6 – Right of Fair Trial – “… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time…”
o Facts
Mr. Venditelli flat was seized by the authorities because he violated town planning regulations. A trial was set but postponed several
times and his appeals were adjourned.
o Issue
Mr. Venditelli complained that:
The length of the proceedings was unreasonable and that there was a violation of art. 6(1) ECHR.
o Court’s assessment
The court applied the criteria to analyse if the proceedings were of an unreasonable time:
Complexity of the case
o The court found that the case was not particularly complex.
Conduct of the applicant (Did he delay it?)
o The applicant delayed the proceedings by seeking adjournment in the court of appeals.
Conduct of the authorities (Did they delay it?)
o The court found that it took the authorities eleven months to present the notifications, however Mr. Venditelli was
present when the notifications were delivered, and he could’ve obtained a copy of the judgement.
o Note: Criminal proceedings make trials longer because of the investigations.
What is at stake for the applicant.
The court also took into consideration the period of the proceedings:
The date when the charge was filled.
Date of the final judgement.
o Conclusion
There was no violation of Art. 6 (1) ECHR.
, Criminal Law – Part B Case Law
Week 2
- Letellier v France – Art 5(3) ECHR – Right to Liberty and Security – “Everyone arrested or detained (…) shall be entitled to a trial within reasonable
time…) – Art. 5 (4) ECHR – “… lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court…”
o Facts
Mrs. Letellier pays two man to kill her husband. She admitted having seen the weapon and she said that she wanted her husband
dead. She was caught and was arrested and re-arrested as she filled several times for release. She remained in detention for a total
of 2 years and 9 months.
o Issue
Mrs. Letellier complained that:
The time she stayed in pre-trial detention was too lengthy and it violated her rights under Art. 5(3) and (4) EHCR.
o Court’s assessment – Art. 5 (3)
The court took the period in consideration from the time she remained in custody to the time of judgment of the national court.
The Criteria used by the court to determine the reasonableness of length of detention.
Persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested committed a crime.
Risk of pressure upon the witness
o Mrs. Letellier could have pressured the other witnesses of the case (The men she paid to kill her husband). The court
said that initially this risk existed but with the passing of time it diminished and disappeared eventually.
Danger of absconding (running away)
o The court found that Mrs. Letelier was in no danger of absconding because she had complied with her court
obligations. Furthermore, it would have been difficult for her since she was the mother of children and manager of a
business as the only source of income.
Inadequacy of court supervision
o Mrs. Letellier cooperated with the court on matters of supervision. The court said that the suspect must be release if
he can provide guarantees that he will not abscond (for example, by lodging security).
Preservation of public order
o The court said that this argument was unfounded because authorities needed to provide a concrete reason that the
release of Mrs. Letellier would indeed cause a public disorder.
