CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt }   Communicated on 14 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35778/11 Abdelhamid DRIDI against Germany lodged on 7 June 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The case concerns the decision of the domestic courts to dismiss the applicant’s appeal in his criminal proceedings after neither the applicant, who had moved abroad after his conviction, nor counsel appeared at the hearing. The summons to the appeal hearing had been served by way of public notification in Germany, despite the fact that the applicant had given notice of his new address in Spain. Counsel had not been summoned to the hearing and learnt of the date of the hearing only one day before. Counsel’s application to adjourn the hearing because he was unavailable on the hearing day and, in addition, wished to inspect the case-file again, was to no avail. The applicant complains that, by proceeding in that manner, the domestic courts breached his rights under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and/or his right to defend himself under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention complied with? In particular, was the summons by public notification sufficient to enable the applicant to attend the hearing before the Hamburg Regional Court? Had there been other means to summon the applicant in Spain under German and European Union law, in particular, was Article 5 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union of 29 May 2000 applicable? Did the domestic courts inform the applicant that, under domestic law, he was obliged to supply a German address for summoning?   2.     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence before the hearing in the Hamburg Regional Court, as required by Article   6 §   3 (b) of the Convention? In particular, was counsel given adequate opportunity to access the court’s case-file after the appeal hearing had been scheduled?   3.     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was counsel given adequate opportunity to attend the appeal hearing?