CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 septembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 122 August-September 2009 Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland - 13566/06 Judgment 22.9.2009 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Discontinuance of legally represented applicant’s criminal appeal due to one day’s absence from hearing: violation   Facts – The applicant was convicted of aggravated fraud and given a conditional twenty-month prison sentence. On appeal he was summoned to attend an oral hearing on specified dates. The summons stated that he was required to appear in person on all the days of the hearing, under penalty of a fine, and that his absence from the main hearing without a valid excuse would result in his appeal being discontinued. The applicant did not attend the first day of the hearing, but was represented by counsel. As a result of the applicant’s absence the appeal court discontinued his appeal. The applicant subsequently notified the appeal court that he had been absent because of illness and produced a medical certificate. However, the appeal court rejected his request for the proceedings to be reopened as the medical certificate was dated after the date of the hearing and, in any event, his illness had not been such as to prevent his attending. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Law – Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 §   3   (c): The appeal court had been under a duty to allow the applicant’s counsel to defend him at the hearing, even in his absence. Although the scope of the hearing on the day in question was not entirely clear, it apparently did not concern issues for which the applicant’s attendance in person was strictly necessary, as the witnesses were not due to be heard until a later date. Nor had it been indicated in the summons that just one day’s absence would be regarded as absence from the entire hearing. Discontinuing the appeal had therefore constituted a particularly rigid and severe sanction, which could not be considered justifiable. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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