## Facts

- Aleksandr K. Nikitin, a former Russian naval officer and environmental activist, worked on a report concerning radioactive contamination risks connected to Russia’s Northern Fleet.
- In October 1995, the Federal Security Service searched an NGO office, seized the report draft, and initiated treason proceedings alleging disclosure of officially secret information about submarine accidents.
- Nikitin was arrested in February 1996; the prosecution exposed him to severe penalties.
- After extended investigation and procedural remittals, the St. Petersburg City Court acquitted Nikitin of treason in December 1999.
- In April 2000, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the acquittal, making it final.
- After the final acquittal, the Prosecutor General sought to reopen the case through supervisory review (nadzor), a mechanism permitting high officials to challenge final judgments and allowing higher courts to review merits and potentially quash outcomes.
- The Supreme Court Presidium dismissed the supervisory-review request; the acquittal remained unchanged.
- Nikitin also challenged the supervisory-review framework in the Constitutional Court, which limited review of acquittals to circumstances involving new evidence or fundamental procedural defects; legislative changes followed.

## Issues

1. Whether initiating and conducting supervisory-review proceedings after a final acquittal amounted to being tried again for the same offense, violating Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (ne bis in idem).
2. Whether the availability and use of supervisory review against a final acquittal—despite dismissal—violated Article 6 § 1 by undermining fairness and legal certainty.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
- The Court held that the attempted supervisory review did not produce a fresh determination of the criminal charge because the request was dismissed, the acquittal was not quashed, and no new trial occurred.
- The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1.
- The Court reasoned that, in this case, supervisory review did not impair legal certainty or fairness because it ended in the applicant’s favor and did not reopen proceedings or worsen his legal position.

## Legal Principles

- Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is engaged when post-final proceedings amount to a second prosecution or trial through a renewed merits determination of the same criminal charge.
- An unsuccessful attempt to reopen a final acquittal does not violate ne bis in idem where the final acquittal remains in force and no retrial or merits reassessment occurs.
- Legal certainty is a component of Article 6 § 1, but an extraordinary review mechanism does not violate Article 6 as applied where it does not set aside a final acquittal, does not reopen the case, and does not disadvantage the accused.
- In assessing Article 6, the Court focuses on the concrete effect of the review proceedings on the finality of the judgment and the individual’s legal position.

## Conclusion

Because the supervisory-review request was dismissed and produced no reopening, no new merits determination, and no deterioration of Nikitin’s status as finally acquitted, the Court held that neither ne bis in idem nor the fair-trial guarantee was breached.


Nikitin v. Russia, App. No. 50178/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2004-VIII (2004)