CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 novembre 2016

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 201 November 2016 Kiril Zlatkov Nikolov v. France - 70474/11 and 68038/12 Judgment 10.11.2016 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Discrimination with respect to enjoyment of right to fair trial: inadmissible Facts – The applicant was prosecuted for a criminal offence related to organised crime. He did not benefit from the guarantee laid down in Article 116-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, consisting of an audiovisual recording of interrogations of persons placed under formal investigation conducted in the investigating judge’s chambers, the seventh paragraph of which provision excluded that guarantee where the investigation concerned the criminal offences in question or crimes infringing the fundamental interests of the French Nation and terrorism. The Constitutional Council declared the provision in question of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional under the equality principle. However, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the grounds that the Constitutional Council’s decision only applied to persons in the applicant’s situation as from the date of its publication. The applicant therefore complained, inter alia , that he had suffered discrimination in the exercise of his right to a fair trial. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 §   1: There was no evidence to show that the failure to record the applicant’s interrogations had any significant impact on the exercise of his rights in the framework of the criminal proceedings against him, or even, more generally, any effect on his personal situation. In any event, the discrimination in his entitlement to a fair trial complained of by the applicant did not cause him any “significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 §   3   (b) of the Convention. Accordingly, given the revocation of the impugned article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respect for human rights as secured under the Convention and the Protocols thereto did not require any assessment of the merits of that part of the application; the issue submitted to the Court had been settled at the domestic level, such that the case now only had an historical interest in that respect. Furthermore, the complaint under Article   14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 §   1 had been duly examined by a domestic court. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage). The Court therefore unanimously found no violation of Article 5 §   3 on the ground that the time-limit for bringing the applicant before the investigating judge had been in conformity with domestic law, falling short of the four-day maximum posited in the case-law of the Court. Moreover, the circumstances of the case sufficiently explained why it had been impossible to bring the applicant before the investigating judge any sooner.   © 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