CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 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 Harizi v. France - 59480/00 Judgment 29.3.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Refusal to allow representation of an absent appellant: violation   Facts : The applicant, an Algerian national resident in France, was the subject of a deportation order and attempts were made to remove him from French territory. He refused to board an aeroplane for his country of origin, as a result of which criminal proceedings were instituted against him. While the appeal proceedings were pending, the applicant was forcibly removed to Algeria. As he faced a sentence of more than two years’ imprisonment, the applicant, in accordance with the legislation in force at the time, was unable to be represented by his lawyer at the trial in his absence. His lawyer applied for a temporary pass allowing the applicant to return to France lawfully without being at risk of expulsion, so that he could appear in person at the trial in the Court of Appeal. He was not issued with a pass. The applicant did not appear and his lawyer was not entitled to take part in the proceedings. The Court of Appeal tried the applicant in absentia . He was found guilty as charged. He did not apply to set aside the judgment as he was required to be present in French territory for such an application to be valid. Law :Article 6 § 1 and § 3(c)   – The applicant had been denied the opportunity to be represented in the appeal proceedings, a situation which the Court had already found to be contrary to the Convention. He had been entitled to apply to have his conviction on appeal set aside. However, since he had been excluded from French territory and was a long distance away, such a remedy, even supposing he could have used it, would not have been valid and would, moreover, have been unlikely to redress his grievances, seeing that the domestic courts had consistently delivered unfavourable decisions in that regard. There had subsequently been a shift in the position adopted by the French courts so that an absent defendant was now entitled to be represented, but this had not occurred until more than three years after the events complained of in the present case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicant part of the sum claimed in respect of lawyers’ fees.   © 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