CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 avril 2025

.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 } .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 } Legal summary April 2025 Federici v. France - 52302/19 Judgment 3.4.2025 [Section V] Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-3-b Adequate facilities Preparation of defence Refusal of accused’s request to be questioned outside secure dock in which he was appearing at trial: inadmissible Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Refusal by assize court of appeal to question accused outside secure dock-in which he was appearing at hearings: no violation Facts – The applicant was charged with murder in an organised group and membership of a criminal organisation. He avoided arrest for several years before being sentenced by an assize court to thirty years’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal. At the hearings, he was permanently escorted by two security officers and seated in an open-roofed secure dock (in the form of a large glass box), which was a permanent fixture in the courtroom. He was able to communicate with his two lawyers through two sets of perforations in the glass panels ( hygiaphones ), and two slots allowed documents to be passed through; two microphones and a speaker enabled him to be heard in the courtroom and to hear sound while inside the secure dock. After attending several hearings in the secure dock, the applicant asked to be removed from it and to be questioned in the witness stand, referring in particular to a hearing impairment. The assize court of appeal refused his request and, on the same day, sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment for a double murder, committed in an organised group. An appeal on points of law was dismissed. Law – Article   6 §§   1 and 3 (b): With regard to the right to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court noted as follows: (i)   the applicant had informed the court of his hearing impairment for the first time on the day before he was due to be questioned on appeal and had not asked for any resulting difficulties to be recorded; (ii) he had not explained the nature of his alleged disability or the extent to which it had compromised his ability to understand the questions put to him, and had not produced an attesting medical document; more generally, he had not established how the refusal of his request – made only on appeal and at an advanced stage of the proceedings, during which he had at no point relied on Article   408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (relating to persons with hearing impairments) – could have undermined the overall fairness of his trial; (iii) the provision of perforations and microphones in a secure dock had already been found by the Convention institutions to enable individuals both to communicate with lawyers and the assize court and to follow the proceedings ( Auguste v. France , Commission’s report); and (iv) the assize court in the present case had provided adequate reasons for its decision, noting that the applicant had been able to answer the questions put to him and to communicate confidentially with his lawyers. The complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded. Conclusion : inadmissible (unanimously). Article   6 §   2: The permanent nature of the structure in which the applicant had appeared prompted the Court to question whether the domestic courts had the option of performing a “case-by-case” assessment of the necessity for an accused to appear in a secure dock. Indeed, the Court noted that the systematic use of such an arrangement could, depending on the circumstances, be detrimental to the fundamental rights of a person accused of a criminal offence. However, the Court’s task was confined to ascertaining, in this specific case, whether the applicant’s questioning in the secure dock had breached his right to be presumed innocent. In that connection, it noted several points. (i) The secure dock in question – a sufficiently spacious and well-equipped glass enclosure with no roof – did not have the harsh appearance of a metal cage, and the applicant had not argued that there had been humiliating factors (such as being escorted by armed guards or dogs, or constantly photographed while in the dock); furthermore, he had asked to be removed from the dock only at the end of the appeal proceedings, the day before his questioning, having already attended several hearings from inside it. (ii) The applicant had not argued, or submitted any observations to the Court, to the effect that he had objective reasons to fear that his appearance in a secure dock could have presented him in a negative light before the assize court; he had also failed to substantiate the arguments relating to his hearing impairment – before the domestic courts, he had merely referred to an the opinion by the Défenseur des droits (Defender of Rights) and to the concept of the presumption of innocence. (iii) The assize court had refused the request on the basis of an in concreto risk assessment, having regard to the previous conduct of the applicant, who had for many years sought to evade justice; it had also taken into account the violent nature of the offences with which he had been charged, finding that his placement in the secure dock had been necessary to guarantee safety. The assize court had also verified that the applicant was free to move around and to communicate with his lawyers in complete confidentiality. The Court of Cassation had upheld this reasoning. The material in the case file did not enable the Court to call into question this detailed assessment, or to find that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the applicant’s questioning in a secure dock had violated his right to be presumed innocent. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See Auguste v.   France , 11837/85 , 7   June 1990; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], 32541/08 and 43441/08 , 17   June 2014, Legal Summary ; Simon Price v.   the United Kingdom, 15602/07 , 15   September 2016; Yaroslav Belousov v.   Russia , 2653/13 and 60980/14, 14   October 2016, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .