An important criterion for the legitimacy of evidence is its verifiability by the public. This is possible through consistent – but not unlimited – enforcement of the principle of publicity. Today, the legal guarantee of publicity is a fundamental principle of modern legislation and law enforcement. However, the classic principle of the public nature of a trial is not the same today as it was in previous centuries, since it is not only the “audience” that can physically observe the proceedings, but also the written press and the electronic media. All the conditions for informing the public are therefore met, but this can have a profound impact on the adjudicatory (evidentiary) activity. According to Hack, this should not determine the court’s conduct of the case, but it should also be borne in mind that public communication can have a significant impact on society’s image of the judiciary and on public confidence in general.1

 

In Hacker’s words, “the controlling effect of publicity, which is stimulating for the judge and secures the interests of the accused and the defence, is well known. Its greatest advantage is that it convinces the public that the judiciary is seeking substantive justice and that the court is guided by the law alone; its greatest disadvantage is that, if the public is not sufficiently reassured, the public trial can become a school for professional criminals. There are divergent views on the degree of publicity acceptable at certain stages of a criminal trial, especially during the criminal investigation. This then led to differentiating between different degrees of publicity in most places and accepting them differently at different stages of the proceedings.”6

 

The Court of Justice, following its case law, has infringed the Convention in the cases below:

 

The Court of Justice, following its case law, did not infringe the Convention when:

 

Based on the case law known from Hungarian jurisprudence, taking into account that the trial of a serious offence committed by a minor defendant may be of great public interest may mean that it may be necessary to hold a closed trial in order to reduce as far as possible the intimidation and inhibition of the minor.25