CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 avril 2012

.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. 151 April 2012 Francesco Sessa v. Italy - 28790/08 Judgment 3.4.2012 [Section II] Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Refusal to adjourn a hearing scheduled on a Jewish holiday: no violation   Facts – The applicant, who is Jewish and a lawyer by profession, represented a complainant at a hearing before the investigating judge on the production of evidence. As the judge was prevented from sitting, his replacement asked the parties to choose between two dates for the adjourned hearing – either 13 or 18   October 2005 – in accordance with a timetable previously determined by the investigating judge. The applicant submitted that both dates fell on a Jewish holiday (Yom Kippur and Sukkoth respectively) and that his religious obligations would prevent him from attending the hearing. The judge set the hearing down for 13   October 2005. The applicant lodged an application with the investigating judge for an adjournment of the hearing and also lodged a criminal complaint against the judge. His application was rejected. The applicant’s criminal complaint was discontinued in 2008 on the ground that there was no evidence in the case of an intention to infringe his right to freely manifest his Jewish faith or to offend his dignity on grounds of his religious belief. Law – Article 9: The investigating judge decided not to allow the applicant’s request for an adjournment, basing his decision on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which an adjournment of hearings concerning the immediate production of evidence was justified only where the prosecutor or counsel for the defendant was absent (the presence of counsel for the complainant not being necessary). The Court was not convinced that setting the case down for hearing on a date which coincided with a Jewish holiday and the refusal to adjourn it to a later date amounted to a restriction on the applicant’s right to freely manifest his faith. Firstly, it was not in dispute between the parties that the applicant had been able to perform his religious duties. Furthermore the applicant, who should have expected that his request for an adjournment would be refused on the basis of the statutory provisions in force, could have arranged to be replaced at the hearing in question to ensure that he complied with his professional obligations. He had not shown that pressure had been exerted on him to change his religious belief or to prevent him from manifesting his religion or beliefs. In any event, even supposing that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right guaranteed under Article 9 §   1, such interference, which was prescribed by law, had been justified on grounds of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others – and in particular the public’s right to the proper administration of justice – and the principle that cases be heard within a reasonable time. The interference had observed a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © 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