CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 décembre 2006

.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. 92 December 2006 Battisti v. France (dec.) - 28796/05 Decision 12.12.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Life sentence following a conviction in absentia : inadmissible   The applicant, a member of an Italian extreme left-wing organisation, was arrested in Italy and received two prison sentences. He escaped from prison and fled to Mexico. While he was in Mexico, proceedings were brought against him on the basis of disclosures made by a former member of the organisation, and three arrest warrants were issued against him. The applicant subsequently moved to France; as a result, the arrest warrants were not served on him. The Milan Assize Court sentenced him to life imprisonment in absentia and the Assize Court of Appeal upheld his conviction. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law. On the basis of the arrest warrants, the Italian authorities made a request to the French authorities for his extradition. The Indictment Division of the Paris Court of Appeal issued an unfavourable opinion on the extradition request, whereupon the Italian authorities submitted a fresh request. The applicant was arrested and the Paris public prosecutor ordered his detention with a view to extradition. In a judgment given after the applicant’s release, the Investigation Division of the Paris Appeal Court ruled in favour of his extradition. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and an order was made for his extradition. The applicant applied unsuccessfully to the Conseil d’Etat to have the extradition order set aside. He is now on the run. Inadmissible : The applicant had patently been informed of the accusation against him and of the progress of the proceedings before the Italian courts, notwithstanding the fact that he had absconded. Furthermore, the applicant, who had deliberately chosen to remain on the run after escaping from prison, had received effective assistance during the proceedings from several lawyers specially appointed by him. Hence, the Italian and subsequently the French authorities had been entitled to conclude that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to appear and be tried in person. The French authorities had therefore taken due account of all the circumstances of the case and of the Court’s case-law in granting the extradition request made by the Italian authorities: 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