Herbert BACHOWSKI v Poland - 32463/06 [2010] ECHR 1917 (2 November 2010)

Herbert BACHOWSKI v Poland - 32463/06 [2010] ECHR 1917 (2 November 2010)

The applicant's conviction was not quashed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact but due to a reassessment of existing evidence and legal misapplication; therefore, Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 does not apply. The Supreme Court's summary dismissal of the cassation appeal did not violate Article 6, as limited reasoning is permissible for manifestly ill-founded appeals.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 1917
Parties
Applicant: Herbert Bachowski; Respondent: Poland
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice, Right to a Fair Trial, Calculation of Damages, Judicial Reasoning
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice Right to a Fair Trial Calculation of Damages Judicial Reasoning

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert Bachowski

Applicant

Poland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right to compensation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention was breached due to the method and amount of compensation awarded for wrongful conviction and imprisonment
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant's cassation appeal by the Supreme Court without detailed reasoning violated Article 6 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's conviction was not quashed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact but due to a reassessment of existing evidence and legal misapplication; therefore, Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 does not apply. The Supreme Court's summary dismissal of the cassation appeal did not violate Article 6, as limited reasoning is permissible for manifestly ill-founded appeals.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible