Applicant vs Ukraine

This case concerned the fairness of criminal proceedings against a mentally ill defendant in Ukraine, focusing on issues of legal representation and the right to participate in the trial.

TLDR:

• The applicant was excluded from her trial due to mental illness.
• The court found the legal representation provided was inadequate.
• The applicant was denied the right to appeal the decision herself.
• The ECHR found violations of Article 6 of the Convention.

The applicant, suffering from a mental disorder, was charged with intentionally inflicting minor bodily injury. The domestic court excluded her from the trial, which proceeded in her absence, and ordered her confinement in a psychiatric facility. The applicant's state-appointed lawyers failed to effectively represent her interests, and she was not allowed to appeal the decision herself.

During the trial, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined whether the applicant's exclusion from the trial and the quality of her legal representation violated her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court emphasized that the presence of the accused is essential for the fairness of the proceedings, especially when the outcome could have significant consequences for the defendant.

The ECHR found that the applicant's exclusion from the trial was unjustified. The domestic court did not properly assess her ability to participate in the proceedings, and her exclusion was based on the prosecutor's request rather than any concrete evidence of her inability to contribute meaningfully to her defense.

Furthermore, the ECHR noted that the applicant's legal representation was manifestly inadequate. Her state-appointed lawyers were passive and failed to challenge the evidence or advocate effectively on her behalf. This lack of effective legal assistance compounded the unfairness of the trial.

The court also addressed the issue of the applicant's right to appeal. Under Ukrainian law, the applicant could not lodge an appeal herself and had to rely on her state-appointed lawyer, who did not file an appeal despite the applicant's wishes and the existence of valid grounds for appeal. This restriction was deemed an unjustified limitation on the applicant's procedural rights.

In conclusion, the ECHR found that the combination of the applicant's exclusion from the trial, the poor quality of legal representation, and the denial of her right to appeal in person resulted in a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. The court awarded the applicant EUR 5,400 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 3,800 for costs and expenses.