CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28   October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2700/24 Saverio LA MANNA against Italy lodged on 9   January 2024 communicated on 8   October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to dispose of adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and his right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing. The applicant was indicted for several charges for having received stolen goods. During the first instance hearing before the District Court of Foggia, the lawyer of his own choosing was registered absent and was therefore replaced by a court-appointed lawyer available on the spot. The prosecutor gave his closings statements, so did the newly appointed lawyer, who had only ten minutes to prepare the case file. On the same day the applicant was convicted and sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment and to pay 7,000   euros as a fine. Immediately after, the lawyer chosen by the applicant appeared before the District Court, claiming that he was outside the courtroom at the time of his call and yet he did not hear it. He therefore asked to be allowed to give his final arguments, which the court declared to abstain. It would appear from the case file that no other decision followed its abstention. Through the lawyer of his own choosing, the applicant appealed against the judgment requesting, among others, that the hearing be declared null and void since the court-appointed lawyer had not disposed of sufficient time to prepare the applicant’s defence. The appeal was dismissed on the merits and, upon further appeal, by the Court of Cassation on points of law. Under Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (b) of the Convention the applicant complains of not having disposed of adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, due to the very short time at his court-appointed lawyer’s disposal during the first instance hearing to prepare the case file, which concerned several episodes of reception of stolen goods and a large number of documents. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention the applicant further complains that the District Court should have appointed his court-appointed lawyer under Article   97   §   1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to allow him to request the adjournment of the case under domestic law and thus dispose of some extra time to prepare his defence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to exercise his defence, as required by Article   6   §   3   (b) of the Convention (see Sadak and Others v.   Turkey (no.   1) , nos.   29900/96 and 3 others, §§   57-59, ECHR   2001 ‑ VIII; Gregačević v.   Croatia , no.   58331/09, §§   49-52, 10   July 2012; and Nevzlin v.   Russia , no.   26679/08, §   152, 18   January 2022)?   2.     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention ( see Sakhnovskiy v.   Russia [GC], no.   21272/03, §   103 and 106, 2   November 2010; Dvorski v.   Croatia   [GC], no.   25703/11, §§   76 and 101, ECHR 2015; and   Elif   Nazan Şeker v.   Turkey , no.   41954/10, §§   42-45, 8   March 2022)?   3.     According to the domestic law and case-law applicable to this case, did the court-appointed lawyer have the possibility to ask for an adjournment of the first-instance hearing?   The Government are asked to submit a copy of all the documents related to applicant’s criminal procedure, with regard in particular to the first-instance trial.