CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 octobre 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September-October 1991 Borgers v. Belgium - 12005/86 Judgment 30.10.1991 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Accused precluded from replying to submissions made at the hearing before the Court of Cassation by an official of the procureur général 's department at that court who participated in the deliberations: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Findings in Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970 concerning independence and impartiality of the Court of Cassation and its procureur général 's department remain entirely valid – no breach of Convention requirements on this issue. Rights of the defence and principle of equality of arms, features of wider concept of a fair trial, which has undergone a considerable evolution, notably in respect of importance attached to appearances and to the increased sensitivity of the public to the fair administration of justice. Even if it is objective, the opinion of the procureur général 's department cannot be regarded as neutral from point of view of the parties to the proceedings – official of procureur général 's department becomes objectively speaking ally or opponent of an accused by recommending that his appeal be allowed or dismissed – in latter event, Article   6 §   1 requires that rights of defence and principle of equality of arms be respected. In present case applicant could at no time reply to avocat général 's unfavourable submissions – in particular it could reasonably be thought that latter's participation, in an advisory capacity, in deliberations of Court of Cassation afforded him an additional opportunity to promote his submissions calling for the dismissal of the appeal. Conclusion : violation (eighteen votes to four). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: to be reimbursed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to the applicant (twenty votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes