SERRANO CONTRERAS v. SPAIN (No. 2)

• Judgment Date: 26 October 2021
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1026JUD000223619
• Counsel: PÉREZ AROCA J.D.
• Date: 26 October 2021
• Application Number: 2236/19
• Court: Third Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: España
• Applied Rules: 6;6-1;41;46;46-1

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SERRANO CONTRERAS v. SPAIN (No. 2)

(Application no. 2236/19)

JUDGMENT

Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Unfairness of revision proceedings before Supreme Court due to distortion of European Court judgment which had found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial • Complaint connected with execution of Court’s earlier judgment but sufficiently distinct to permit its examination • Art 6 § 1 safeguards applicable to revision proceedings in present case, in light of the scope of Supreme Court’s scrutiny

STRASBOURG

26 October 2021

FINAL

26/01/2022

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Serrano Contreras v. Spain (no. 2),

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President,
Georgios A. Serghides,
María Elósegui,
Darian Pavli,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Peeter Roosma,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 2236/19) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Spanish national, Mr Bernardo Serrano Contreras (“the applicant”), on 17 December 2018;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Spanish Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The present case concerns the revision of the applicant’s criminal conviction after the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in its judgment of 20 March 2012.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Fernán Núñez (Córdoba). The applicant was represented by Mr J.D. Pérez Aroca, a lawyer practising in Córdoba.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Brezmes Martínez de Villarreal, State Attorney.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background of the case and the first Serrano Contreras judgment

5. By a judgment of 11 November 2003, the Audiencia Provincial of Córdoba acquitted the applicant and other accused of charges against them of fraud, forgery of official documents and forgery of commercial documents.

6. Following an appeal on points of law lodged by plaintiffs, by a judgment of 14 October 2005, the Supreme Court – without first holding a hearing – found the applicant and the other accused guilty of fraud, forgery of official documents and forgery of commercial documents. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay any damages subsequently awarded.

7. On 29 September 2008 the applicant lodged application no. 49183/08 with the European Court of Human Rights; he complained, inter alia, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the unfairness and undue length of the proceedings.

8. By a judgment of 20 March 2012, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the fairness and the length of the proceedings.

9. The details of the proceedings before the national courts prior to the Court’s judgment of 20 March 2012 are set out in Serrano Contreras v. Spain, no. 49183/08, §§ 6-20, 20 March 2012.

2. The application for revision and the subsequent appeals

10. On the basis of the Court’s judgment of 20 March 2012, the applicant lodged an application for a revision of the judgment (“application for revision” – recurso de revisión) with the Supreme Court. In the application, the applicant requested the quashing of the Supreme Court judgment of 14 October 2005 by which he had been convicted of fraud, forgery of official documents and forgery of commercial documents.

11. By a judgment of 19 May 2015, the Supreme Court allowed in part the application for revision and quashed the applicant’s conviction in respect of the offence of forgery of official documents. In respect of his conviction for fraud and forgery of commercial documents, it dismissed the applicant’s application for revision. The applicant was not heard in person during the revision proceedings as those proceedings were conducted entirely in writing. The Supreme Court did not modify the four-year prison term previously imposed. Concerning the applicant’s conviction for forgery of official documents, the...