CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mai 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. 152 May 2012 Dïriöz v. Turkey - 38560/04 Judgment 31.5.2012 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Raised position of public prosecutor in hearing room: inadmissible   Facts – In 2003 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and causing injury with a firearm. Before the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia , that the principle of equality of arms had been breached in so far as the prosecutor had stood on a raised platform, whereas he and his lawyer had been placed, as was the rule, at a lower level in the courtroom. He also complained that the prosecutor had entered the courtroom at the same time as the judges and by the same door, whereas his lawyer had had to use the public entrance. Law – Article 6 § 1: The fact complained of was not sufficient to breach the principle of equality of arms in so far as, although a privileged “physical” position had been conferred on the prosecutor, the accused had not been placed at a disadvantage regarding the defence of his interests. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (c) with regard to the applicant’s allegation that he had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody.   © 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