CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 janvier 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 60 January 2004 Kyprianou v. Cyprus - 73797/01 Judgment 27.1.2004 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Conviction of lawyer for contempt of court by the same court before which the contempt took place: violation Facts : The applicant is an advocate who, in the course of a trial in which he was acting as defence counsel, was interrupted by the Assize Court judges whilst cross-examining a witness. He felt aggrieved and sought leave to withdraw from the case, but as leave was not granted, the applicant responded to the court in an intemperate outburst. The applicant was given the opportunity to explain himself to the court or to retract his remarks. Following successive breaks to consider the matter, the same court found the applicant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to five days’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the Assize Court was competent to deal with contempt of court. Law : Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal) – It was not disputed that the offence of contempt of court committed by the applicant involved the determination of a criminal charge, which rendered the defence rights guaranteed by Article 6 applicable. Concerning compliance with this article, the fact that the Assize Court before which the alleged contempt had been committed had subsequently found the applicant guilty and sentenced him raised legitimate doubts, which were objectively justified, as to the impartiality of the court.   The Court found that the Assize Court judges had developed a certain personal bias against the applicant as a result of the discussion they had had with him. This was evidenced by the fact of trying him hastily for contempt without making use of less drastic measures (admonition, disciplinary measure, etc.) and ordering his immediate imprisonment. The review by the Supreme Court had not rectified the alleged partiality as there had not been a retrial of the case but merely a review on points of law. Moreover, the applicant’s appeal had not suspended the imprisonment sentence, which he had started to serve immediately after being convicted.   Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 2 – The Assize Court had formed and expressed an opinion during its discussion with the applicant which showed it had already come to the conclusion that the applicant was guilty of contempt of court. The applicant had not been given a full opportunity to defend himself against a charge which had consequences for his liberty, and had only been expected to provide mitigation on his own behalf before the delivery of the final ruling. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 3 (a) – The Assize Court informed the applicant of the accusation against him after it had already come to the conclusion of his guilt. Moreover, the detailed facts which had led the Assize Court to convict the applicant had not been put to him by the members of the court, which would have enabled him to prepare his defence. In these circumstances, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (a). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.   © 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