Key facts of the case:
The plaintiff was sentenced for having committed a crime of changing landmarks. The building’s owner, who was allowed to intervene in the case as an assistant, filed for civil compensation against the plaintiff for material and non-material damages, as well as for expenses accrued by fees and court costs. The trial was held and the sentence deemed the allegation unfounded, thus absolving the plaintiff of the above-mentioned crime; the demand for civil compensation was also deemed unfounded. The assistant appealed, contesting the judgement about the factual matter being deemed unfounded. The Public prosecutor and the plaintiff responded.
Effectively speaking, based on the principle enshrined in Article 14, number 5 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (...) – Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law - , and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)(...) which, although not directly referring to the double degree of jurisdiction, nevertheless calls for the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence (Article 6) – and which are likewise laid down in identical manner in Articles 47 and 48 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (...), and the express mention (of the double degree of jurisdiction) that is only set down in Article 2 of the 7th Protocol to the ECHR (...).