CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 décembre 1998

.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. 1 November-December 1998 A.E.D.L.G. v. Spain (dec.) - 40180/98 Decision 15.12.1998 Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Refusal to hear witnesses who had previously given evidence under letters of request: inadmissible   The applicant, a Spanish national, was director of the Spanish Tourist Office (ONET) in Stockholm from 1982 to 1986. After his return to Spain and following a number of reminders from Swedish companies of debts owed to them by the ONET for the provision of services, proceedings were initiated against the applicant for forgery of a commercial document for the purpose of misappropriating public funds. A letter of request was issued by the investigating judge so that witnesses in Sweden could be heard;   this letter of request included questions asked by the applicant. The latter was charged and the case sent before the Audiencia Nacional .   Following adversarial proceedings, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced on the basis not only of the results of the letter of request but also of certain other evidence gathered in the course of the proceedings. The applicant’s appeal on points of law and amparo appeal were rejected. The applicant complains of the refusal by the Audiencia Nacional to hear witnesses whose statements had previously been taken under the letter of request. Inadmissible under Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (d): It is not within the competence of the Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts and the evidence for that of the domestic courts. The Court’s duty is to see whether the proceedings, taken as a whole, including the way in which evidence was presented, were fair or not.   Furthermore, the accused does not have an unlimited right to have witnesses called before a court. In principle, it is up to the domestic judge to decide on the need to call a witness. In the case in question, given that the Spanish courts based their conviction of the applicant on a number of pieces of evidence, the refusal by the Audiencia Nacional to hear witnesses from whom statements had previously been taken under a letter of request did not render the trial unfair: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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