-
.
- Ελληνικά
The article in question has been consistently interpreted by the Cypriot courts
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected as inadmissible the applicant's application (Rousounidou v. Cyprus), for an alleged violation by the Republic of Cyprus of the right to a fair trial and the right of access to a court (Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights - ECHR), finding the application to be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols. The Court's judgment was delivered on 25 January 2024.
In particular, the applicant had been acquitted by the Paphos District Court - a decision which was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court - and applied for an award of her legal costs. Her application was rejected by both the Paphos District Court and the Supreme Court. Her complaint to the ECtHR concerned an alleged violation of her right to a fair trial because the courts of the Republic do not have discretion to award attorney's fees to an acquitted defendant payable from the public purse.
The ECtHR, which examined the case, reached the above judgment accepting the preliminary objection raised by the Advocate General of the Republic, as the representative of the Republic in the proceedings before the ECtHR, that Article 6§1 of the Convention did not apply to the present case, since the applicant did not have any "right" within the meaning of Article 6§1 of the Convention.
In particular, the issue of the award of legal fees is not a "criminal charge" falling within the scope of Article 6§1, nor is it a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6§1 ECHR, since the Convention does not confer any right to an award of costs arising from criminal proceedings on a person who has been charged and subsequently acquitted. As the ECtHR states, the whole question is decided by reference to national law. In the present case, the relevant article of the Cypriot law gives the national courts discretion in the matter of awarding legal costs to an acquitted defendant, but, as the ECtHR continues, it is primarily the national authorities and, in particular, the courts which interpret national law, provided that their interpretation is not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
According to the ECtHR, the relevant article of the law has been consistently interpreted by the Cypriot courts in such a way as to exclude the possibility of awarding legal fees to an acquitted defendant payable from the State Fund. This interpretation was also followed in the applicant's case. The legislature appears to have given the courts discretion to decide the issue of costs, without imposing an obligation on the State to award attorney's fees to an acquitted defendant, and without the legislature expressly recognizing the existence of such a right.
On behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic, the case before the ECtHR was handled by the Senior Advocate of the Republic, Ms Theodora Christodoulides.
26 January 2024
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
