CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 décembre 2017

.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 } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; 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 213 December 2017 Ramda v. France - 78477/11 Judgment 19.12.2017 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adequate procedural safeguards in place to enable defendant accused of acts of terrorism to understand reasons for verdict of specially composed Assize Court: no violation Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Right not to be tried or punished twice Assize Court proceedings not based on same terrorist offences as had led to conviction in Criminal Court: no violation Facts – Between July and October 1995 eight terrorist attacks were carried out in France by the Groupement Islamique Armé (G.I.A.). In a judgment of March 2006 a criminal court found the applicant guilty of criminal association in connection with a terrorist conspiracy, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It also made an exclusion order, banning him from French territory for life. In a judgment of December 2006, which became final, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial judgment. In 2001 the Investigations Division had issued three orders against the applicant and a number of other suspects committing them to stand trial. In October 2007 a special bench of the Assize Court made up of seven professional judges found the applicant guilty as charged for his part in three terrorist attacks that had been committed in July and October 1995 and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with a twenty-two-year minimum term. In September 2009, following an appeal by the applicant, the Assize Court of Appeal upheld the conviction after replying to sixty-three questions. In June 2011 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant complained of a lack of reasoning in the judgment delivered by the special bench of the Assize Court of Appeal. He also complained that he had been prosecuted and convicted twice in respect of the same facts for which he had previously been convicted by the Court of Appeal in December 2006. Law Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: The present case concerned a lack of reasoning in a judgment delivered by a special Assize Court composed exclusively of professional judges without a lay jury. The Court considered the applicant’s complaint in the light of the principles set out in Taxquet v.   Belgium ([GC] judgment, no. 926/05, 16   November 2010, Information Note 135 ) in view of the similarity of the procedure in that case with the procedure in the present case. As regards the combined impact of the committal orders and the questions put to the Assize Court in the instant case, the Court noted that the applicant was not the only defendant and the case was complex. The three committal orders were limited in scope because they were issued before the trial which formed the main part of the proceedings. Nevertheless, each committal order related to a different terrorist attack and contained thorough reasoning in respect of the offences charged, presenting the events in a very detailed manner. Moreover, the applicant had already had an opportunity during the proceedings at first instance to examine the charges against him in detail and to set out his defence. In addition to the fact that the committal orders remained the basis of the charges before the Assize Court of Appeal, the proceedings at first instance had provided him with further information on the charges against him and the reasons for which he was liable to be convicted on appeal. Sixty-three questions had been put concerning the applicant. Sixty-one were answered “yes, on a majority” and two were declared “devoid of purpose”. In addition to providing further information on the relevant places and dates in each case, as well as listing the victims and their injuries, the questions were aimed in particular at ascertaining whether the applicant had acted with premeditation and incited others to commit certain acts, had aided and abetted terrorist attacks or had instructed others to carry out specific criminal acts. The number and precision of the questions had provided an appropriate framework for reaching the final decision. Although the applicant contested the wording of the questions, he had at no stage suggested amending or replacing them. Accordingly, in the light of the combined examination of the three carefully reasoned committal orders, the arguments heard both at first instance and on appeal, as well as the many detailed questions put to the Assize Court, the applicant could not have been unaware of the reasons for his conviction. In conclusion, the applicant had been afforded sufficient safeguards enabling him to understand the guilty verdict against him. Nevertheless, the Court welcomed the fact that a new reform introduced by Law No. 2011-939 of 10   August 2011, which now required the completion of a “statement of reasons form”, also applied to the special benches of the Assize Courts. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 4 of Protocol No. 7: Since the Sergei Zolotukhin v.   Russia ([GC] judgment, 14939/03, 10   February 2009, Information Note 116 ), Article   4 of Protocol No. 7 had to be read as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a person for a second “offence” in so far as it arose from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same. A comparison of the Court of Appeal’s judgment of December 2006 convicting the applicant with the three orders issued by the Investigations Division committing him for trial by the special bench of the Assize Court showed that those decisions were based on a wide range of different, detailed facts. The three committal orders issued in 2001 made no mention of various factual matters that were referred to during the initial criminal proceedings before the ordinary courts; in addition, and above all, they concerned conduct and facts which were not mentioned during the original proceedings. Thus the applicant had not been prosecuted or convicted in the criminal proceedings in respect of facts that were substantially the same as those which had been the subject of his final criminal conviction by the ordinary courts. Lastly, the Court observed that it was legitimate for the Contracting States to take a firm stance against persons involved in terrorist acts, which could in no way be condoned. The Assize Court had convicted the applicant not only in respect of acts that were different from those for which he had been tried in the first set of proceedings, but also of crimes of complicity in murder and attempted murder, which constituted serious violations of the fundamental rights under Article 2 of the Convention, in respect of which States were required to pursue and punish the perpetrators, subject to compliance with the procedural guarantees of the persons concerned. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See, on the issue of the reasoning of judgments, Agnelet v.   France , 61198/08, 10   January 2013, Information Note 159 ; Legillon v.   France , 53406/10, 10   January 2013, Information Note 159 ; Marguš v.   Croatia [GC], 4455/10, 27   May 2014, Information Note 174 ; Matis v.   France (dec.), 43699/13, 6   October 2015, Information Note 189 ; and Lhermitte v.   Belgium [GC], 34238/09, 29   November 2016, Information Note 201 ; see also the Factsheets on the Right not to be tried or punished twice (the non bis in idem principle) and on Terrorism , as well as the video COURTalks-disCOURs on terrorism)   © 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