CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 octobre 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 189 October 2015 Matis v. France (dec.) - 43699/13 Decision 6.10.2015 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Assize court judgment containing statement of reasons for jury’s guilty verdict: inadmissible Facts – The applicant was convicted of murder by an Assize Court. The jury answered one question only, and detailed reasons were given for the judgment. Law – Article 6 § 1: In previous cases* the Court had considered the issue of the reasons provided for Assize Court judgments involving juries. A reform had since been conducted inserting a new Article into the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the introduction of a feuille de motivation (a document giving reasons for judgments). That document sets out the main charges where were debated during the proceedings, developed during the deliberations and ultimately formed the basis for the decision to find the applicant guilty as charged. The number and precision of the facts enumerated in the feuille de motivation , which in the present case tallied with the findings of the investigating judges division in their indictment, were such as to apprise the applicant of the reasons for her conviction. Having regard to that document and its content, it was immaterial that only one question had been put. Consequently, the applicant had benefited from sufficient safeguards to enable her to understand the judgment convicting her. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See also Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], 926/05, 16   November 2010,   Information Note   135 ) *   See Agnelet v. France, 61198/08 , and Legillon v.   France, 53406/10 , judgments of 10   January 2013, summarised in Information Note   159 .   © 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