There is a 1) in your post but no 2)
If this is directed toward the Natunen v Finland case, there are
three apparent deletions you may be referring to:
1) The listing of alleged violations of the Convention. The omission is in the original, the ECtHR only lists, by Article number, those Articles that are alleged to have been violated.
2) Under Merits, I abridged by omitting Section 1, which is the listing of the arguments of the applicant and of the government (Finland). I only included Section 2, the finding of the Court, since they repeat the arguments while dismissing, accepting, or modifying them. I forgot to put in an indication of ellipsis (= .....).
3) For brevity, I did not include Sections II and III.
Section II reads, in part
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION:
.....
54. The Court observes that, in this case, and subject to its above findings on the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, the District Court convicted the applicant after adversarial proceedings, in which he had the possibility to challenge the evidence produced against him. The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal after a full review of the case in an oral hearing. Both courts gave reasons for their decisions. Having regard to the facts of the case, and given its subsidiary role regarding the assessment of evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the prosecutor had failed to establish a convincing prima facie case against the applicant. There is no indication that the domestic courts had a preconceived idea of the applicant’s guilt. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the domestic courts had shifted the burden of proof to the defendant (see, a contrario, Telfner v. Austria, cited above, § 18).
It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. {End of II. Didn't seem as relevant as I.}
Section III reads in part:
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Damage
56. The applicant requested, firstly, that the Court declare that the most appropriate form of redress would be, in principle, to order the re-opening of the case. In the event of a finding that the requirements of Article 6 § 1 had not been complied with, the charge against the applicant should be dismissed. Secondly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 3,000 euros (EUR).
57. The Government considered the claim excessive as to quantum. Any award should not exceed EUR 2,500.
58. The Court accepts that the lack of guarantees of Article 6 has caused the applicant non-pecuniary damage, which cannot be made good by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court considers that the award of non-pecuniary damage provides a sufficient redress in this case, having regard, in particular, to the destruction of recordings.
{I viewed this section as not as relevant to the general legal issues, so I left it out.}
.........
{There is a conclusion section that follows, which sums up the Court's findings.}
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints concerning the lack of equality of arms and the right to adequate facilities for the preparation of the applicant’s defence admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,800 (three thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 March 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{Note that the Court does not explicitly write anything about the non-monetary redress the applicant should receive. Sometimes it does write that there should be a retrial, or makes other comments. However, it relies on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to work with the respondent state to redress such issues. The ECtHR is not an appeal court in that sense, and it strives to confine its statements to issues of violations of Convention rights.}
