CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 décembre 2015

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 191 December 2015 Kristiansen v. Norway - 1176/10 Judgment 17.12.2015 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Presence on jury of juror who knew the victim and commented on her character: violation Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention that in criminal proceedings in which he was convicted of attempted rape, one of the members of the jury had lacked impartiality. During the proceedings the juror in question informed the presiding judge that she had prior knowledge of the victim. Despite noting that she “had formed a picture [ bilde ] of the victim from many years ago where she at the time had experienced her as a quiet and calm person”, the High Court considered that it was not capable of influencing her assessment of the question of guilt. Law – Article 6 § 1: The Court endorsed the domestic courts’ view that previous sporadic contact between the victim and the juror could not, on their own, disqualify the juror, as they had not involved personal knowledge and had occurred several years previously. Although the exact relevance of the juror’s depiction of the victim as “a quiet and calm person” had given rise to different interpretations at the domestic level, the Court did not find it necessary to determine its exact meaning. However, it noted that the statement was clearly not negative and could actually convey a positive portrait of the victim, susceptible of influencing the juror’s evaluation and/or that of other members of the jury to the defendant’s disadvantage. That possibility was reinforced by the fact that the juror’s value judgment had been expressed at a time when it could be perceived as a comment or reaction to the oral evidence just given by the victim and the applicant respectively. In these circumstances, the applicant had a legitimate reason to fear that the juror might have had preconceived ideas capable of having a bearing on his innocence or guilt. Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer had requested that the juror be disqualified on grounds of lack of impartiality, the victim’s assistant lawyer had supported the motion, and the public prosecutor had expressed understanding for it, albeit without taking a stance. Whilst none of these objections and comments was by itself decisive, when considered together they did provide a strong indication of the importance of appearances in the present case. However, despite these indications that the juror might lack impartiality, the domestic court had neither discharged her not sought to redirect the jury, for instance by inviting the jurors to rely on evidence presented in court alone and stressing that they must not allow any other factor to influence their decision. Having regard to the cumulative effect of these circumstances, there were justifiable grounds on which to doubt the trial court’s impartiality. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Ekeberg and Others v. Norway , 11106/04, 31   July 2007, Information Note   99 ; Peter Armstrong v.   the United Kingdom , 65282/09, 9   December 2014, Information Note   180 ; and Hanif and Khan v.   the United Kingdom , 52999/08 and 61779/08, 20   December 2011, Information Note   147 )   © 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