CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mars 2005

.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. 73 March 2005 Mattick v. Germany (dec.) - 62116/00 Decision 31.3.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-b Adequate time Alleged lack of time for defence counsel to familiarise himself with case files and expert opinions: inadmissible   The applicant was placed in interim police custody on suspicion of attempted homicide. The bill of indictment stated that due to the applicant’s previous convictions he met the requirements to be placed in compulsory confinement. The defence counsel requested access to the applicant’s present and previous case files to prepare the defence. The Regional Court, where the proceedings had been opened, granted access to these files on 2 June 1999. A copy of an expert opinion which concluded that the requirements for compulsory confinement were met, as well as additional files of previous convictions of the applicant that the court had just received, were given to the defence counsel on 28   June 1999. Four hearings took place during 1 - 21 July 1999. The defence counsel’s request that the trial be suspended for lack of time to prepare the applicant’s defence was rejected. Two experts were heard and delivered opinions in the course of the hearings. The applicant was sentenced to 5   years and six months’ imprisonment and placed in compulsory confinement. Inadmissible under Article   6 § 3(b): The defence counsel had received the available case files one month before the first hearing, which was sufficient time to become familiar with them. As regards the expert opinion and remaining case files, which were only at the defence’s disposal three days before the first hearing, the defence counsel had additional time to study those documents between the hearings which took place from 1 to 21 July. On the finding that the time between the hearings counted as preparatory time, the Court concluded that the defence had had ample time to examine the expert opinion and additional case files: 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