THE SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE LIMITS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S EX OFFICIO POWERS IN LIGHT OF THE STANDARDS FOR A FAIR TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE ECHR

Author

Zlatimir Nikolov

Annotation

This article examines the relationship between the application of the "revisionary principle"—primarily within appellate criminal proceedings—and the standards established under the right to a fair trial pursuant to Article 6 of the ECHR. The analysis aims to explore how the revisionary principle, and specifically the *ex officio* review conducted by the appellate court, aligns with the requirements of the ECHR. The Bulgarian legal framework is compared against the case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU; in this context, the dual nature of the revisionary principle is explored—on the one hand, as a safeguard for rectifying errors and establishing the objective truth, and on the other, as a potential source of risk to the procedural rights of the parties. Particular attention is devoted to the *ex officio* reclassification of an offense—specifically when the court exercises its authority to modify a judgment by applying the law relevant to the same, an equivalent, or a less severely punishable crime. The analysis concludes that the revisionary principle is compatible with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the ECHR.

Keywords

principle of review; appellate proceedings; ex officio review; right to a fair trial; right to a defense; adversarial principle.