CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 février 2007

.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. 94 February 2007 Verdú Verdú v. Spain - 43432/02 Judgment 15.2.2007 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Applicant not served with written submissions in which complainant merely reproduced the Public Prosecutor’s arguments: no violation   Facts : The applicant often used to buy lottery tickets, which he was responsible for distributing among his work colleagues. When one of the tickets won a special prize equivalent to EUR 2,956,979.55, the applicant kept the winning ticket for himself. Claiming that the applicant had promised to give him half his winnings in the event of a lucky draw, J.P.R. lodged a complaint for misappropriation. The applicant was acquitted at first instance but the prosecution appealed. J.P.R. filed pleadings endorsing the prosecution arguments. The appeal court found the applicant guilty, sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay half the winnings in compensation. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining in particular that he had not received a copy of J.P.R.’s pleadings. The Constitutional Court dismissed his appeal on the ground that the pleadings in question simply reiterated the prosecution’s arguments without containing any fresh submissions. Law : The applicant himself had acknowledged that the pleadings in question were similar in substance to the prosecution’s grounds of appeal. Sending the applicant a copy of the pleadings and giving him an opportunity to reply to them could not have had any effect on the outcome of the case. The applicant could not argue that the fact that he had been unable to challenge the pleadings because he had not received a copy amounted to a denial of his defence rights in breach of Article 6(1). To find otherwise would be to confer on him a right devoid of any real significance or substance. Furthermore, the applicant had omitted to demonstrate in what way the failure to send him a copy of the pleadings had been detrimental to him. The reasons given by the Constitutional Court to justify the failure to send the applicant a copy of the pleadings had been neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Conclusion : no violation (by five votes to two).   © 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