CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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. November-December 1991 S. v. Switzerland - 12629/87 and 13965/88 Judgment 28.11.1991 Article 6 Article 6-3 Rights of defence Restrictions on free communication between an accused remanded in custody and his lawyer: 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 § 3 (C) OF THE CONVENTION Right for person charged with a criminal offence to communicate with his lawyer out of hearing of other persons: not expressly guaranteed by the Convention – right constituting one of the basic requirements of a fair trial in a democratic society – follows from Article 6 §   3   (c). Measure in issue based on "indications pointing to a danger of collusion is the person of defence counsel" – possible risk not capable of justifying measure – no other sufficiently cogent reasons. Restriction lasting for over seven months. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 3 (B) OF THE CONVENTION Complaint not reiterated before the Court. Conclusion : no need for the Court to examine of its own motion (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION In view of finding of violation of Article 6 §   3 (c), no need to consider the matter with respect to Article 5 §   4 as well. Conclusion : no need to rule on the complaint (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Non-pecuniary damage: equitable assessment – compensation awarded. Costs and expenses: relating to domestic court decisions relevant from point of view of Article 6 §   3   (c) and to proceedings before Convention institutions – reimbursed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant (unanimously).   © 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