Spanish judge convicted on sole instance without the right to appeal

Facts

The author, Joaquín José Ortiz Blasco, a Spanish national and judge in the Administrative Division of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia, was tried in sole instance by the Supreme Court in 2012 for dealings and activities prohibited for public servants and abuse of public office. On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court convicted him, imposing a fine of €13,500, a two-year suspension from public office, and liability for legal costs. The judgment was not subject to appeal. The author filed a motion for annulment, which the Supreme Court dismissed without addressing the merits. He then submitted an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court, arguing that a conviction in sole instance violated his right to a second hearing. On 24 November 2015, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of fundamental rights.

In his communication, the author alleges a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant on the right to appeal in criminal cases, arguing that Spain’s continued failure to provide an appeal mechanism for officials tried in sole instance by the Supreme Court contradicts previous Committee rulings on the matter.

Admissibility

The Committee declared the communication admissible, rejecting Spain’s argument that the case constituted an abuse of the right of submission, finding the author’s claims under article 14 (5) to be sufficiently substantiated.

Merits

The Committee found a violation of article 14 (5), reaffirming that the right to appeal is fundamental and cannot be denied based on an individual’s status or the court that initially tried the case. It submitted that while a State party’s legislation may provide for the trial of an individual to be by a higher court by first instance, such does not eliminate the requirement for a higher-level review. Since Spain failed to provide any effective remedy for the author to seek a review of his conviction and sentence, the Committee concluded that his rights under article 14 (5) had been violated.

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) provide an effective remedy by ensuring the author’s conviction and sentence can be reviewed by a higher court in line with article 14 (5) of the Covenant;
• (b) take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future;
• (c) ensure that the relevant legal framework is in conformity with the requirements of article 14 (5) of the Covenant.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 13 September 2024