Events
The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment by the heavy criminal court for the offence of manslaughter with probable intent, and the criminal department of the regional court of appeal (criminal department), which examined the applicant’s appeal request, rejected the request on the merits. Upon the rejection of the request for appeal, the applicant’s defence counsel filed an appeal with a petition dated 5/11/2018 within the time limit starting from the announcement of the verdict in person. The criminal chamber notified the reasoned decision to the applicant’s defence counsel on 22/11/2018. On 5/12/2018, the applicant’s defence counsel submitted an additional petition showing the grounds of appeal to the criminal chamber. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petition stating the grounds of appeal was submitted after the seven-day legal deadline.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right of access to the court was violated due to the decision to reject his appeal request on the grounds that the grounds of appeal were not notified within the prescribed period.
Assessment of the Court
In the concrete case, the criminal chamber gave a notice in terms of the fifteen-day period, which is the general period for appeal, but did not give a notice in terms of the seven-day period for the submission of the petition containing the grounds of appeal as of the notification of the reasoned judgement. In other words, the criminal chamber did not evaluate the appeal process as a whole and incompletely informed the applicant to file an additional petition containing the grounds of appeal as of the notification of the reasoned judgement. The Court of Cassation also rejected the applicant’s request for appeal against a decision containing incomplete information in terms of the legal remedy of appeal, on the grounds that the applicant submitted a petition indicating the grounds for appeal after the seven-day legal period had elapsed. In this case, it is understood that the Court of Cassation’s rejection of the applicant’s request for appeal without putting some balancing safeguards in place has made the right of access to the court difficult and imposed an undue burden on the applicant. Therefore, it is concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to the court is disproportionate.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to access to court within the scope of the right to a fair trial was violated.