ECHR overturns killing conviction of Andreas Kyprianou Panovitc

From the Cyprus Weekly 18/12/2008:

" ECHR overturns killing conviction
A 25-year old man sentenced in 2000 to 14 years imprisonment for manslaughter and robbery is to be released after the European Court of Human Rights ruled he had been deprived of his right to a fair trial in Cyprus.



Andreas Kyprianou Panovitc, then under 18, had confessed to manslaughter and robbery when with the help of an older friend he beat a gay Briton in order to steal his money.
Following the rejection of his appeal by the Supreme Court, the convict applied in 2004 to the Strasbourg-based ECHR through his lawyers Eftstathiou and Mylonas under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights governing the right to a fair trial.
Accepting the arguments of Panovitc’s lawyers, the ECHR held that article 6 had been violated, basically on the grounds that proper legal assistance was lacking in the initial stage of the applicant’s questioning by police.

The Court also found violations due to the use of the applicant’s confession in his main trial and to the admission of evidence attempting to show his “bad” character.
Lastly the ECHR ruled that article 6 had been violated because of the way the Assizes Court in Limassol had handled the confrontation with the applicant’s defence counsel Michalakis Kyprianou, resulting in the latter’s conviction for contempt of court.

The incident had made headlines at the time, with Kyprianou having to spend sometime in jail. He had criticised the judges of the criminal court amongst other things for exchanging “secret notes” among them during the trial and not paying due attention to the work of the defence."

See also the ECHR's press release

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness)
Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Panovits v. Cyprus (no. 4268/04)

The applicant, Andreas Kyriakou Panovits, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1982 and is currently serving concurrent sentences of 14 and six years’ imprisonment at Nicosia Central Prison for manslaughter and robbery.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Panovits made a number of complaints about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) on account of the lack of legal assistance in the initial stages of the applicant’s questioning by the police. It also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the use of the applicant’s confession in his main trial and, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the admission of evidence which had attempted to show his “bad character” in that same trial. Lastly, the Court held, by five votes, to two that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Assize Court’s handling of the confrontation with the applicant’s defence counsel, convicted of contempt of court, during the applicant’s trial. (The judgment is available only in English.)