Gloss to the judgment of the European Human Rights of 9 March 2023 in the case of Cupiał v. Poland, complaint No. 67414/11 (approving)

Kornelia Grabowska-Biernat

Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie UWM
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6890-3183

Abstract

The commented judgment indicates that the right to a fair trial cannot be seen as effective unless the requests and observations of the parties are truly “heard” and points out that it is not within its jurisdiction to rule on the guilt
or innocence, but it is within the Court’s jurisdiction to assess whether the proceedings complied with the Convention. What is important is that Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law. Furthermore, the right to a fair trial cannot be seen as effective unless the requests and observations of the parties are properly examined by
the tribunal. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the right to a fair trial can only be seen as effective if the parties’ requests and comments are heard. The Court noted that the domestic courts in two instances, failed
to assess the specific and valid arguments of the applicant and thus failed to meet one of the requirements of a fair trial, namely failing to provide adequate reasons for their decisions. In the above situation, finding a violation of the
right to a fair trial (Article 61 of the Convention).

Keywords:

criminal proceedings, the right to a fair trial, violation of the Convention, assessment of evidence, reasons for decisions