CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 novembre 2002

.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 47 November 2002 Maillet v. France (dec.) - 45676/99 Decision 12.11.2002 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal to admit appeal memorial on account of absence of signature of appellant who had chosen not to be represented by a lawyer practising before the supreme courts: inadmissible The applicant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for armed robbery; he had previously been convicted of similar offences. Before the Assize Court, he was represented by a lawyer , Q., appointed by the court under the legal aid scheme. The applicant appealed on a point of law. No application for legal aid was made in connection with those proceedings, but Q. drafted the pleadings in support of the appeal, which he filed after signing them. The Court of Cassation held that the pleadings, which were not signed by the appellant and bore only the signature of his counsel, did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 584 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that it could not adjudicate on the pleas they might contain. The Court dismissed the appeal. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: an appellant who represents himself, without instructing a specialist lawyer belonging to the Bar practicing before the Councils, must file pleadings bearing his own signature, pursuant to Article 584 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to comply with that requirement for a signature entails the inadmissibility of the pleadings. The regulations on the procedures to be observed when lodging an appeal are designed to ensure the proper administration of justice and that aim is legitimate. The requirement of a signature is an old rule, interpreted by a clear and consistent body of case-law, so that the applicant's counsel, in his capacity as a legal practitioner, was in a position to know precisely what his obligations were. Before the Court of Cassation, the applicant was assisted by Q., who had been appointed by the court during the earlier states before the trial courts. Before the Court of Cassation the applicant had the choice as to whether or not to be represented by a lawyer practicing before the Councils. The system thus proposed in French law offers sufficient guarantees. The applicant chose to continue to avail himself of the services of Q. to lodge his appeal on a point of law. The specific nature of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation may justify greater formality in the proceedings before it. The applicant's decision not to instruct a lawyer practising before the Councils may justify his appeal being subject to stricter conditions of admissibility and his signature being required. In the present case, the applicant or his lawyer had the opportunity to ensure that the rules of procedure before the Court of Cassation were observed. Furthermore, the declaration of inadmissibility penalised the applicant for a material error made in the preparation of his appeal, for which the applicant he had chosen is responsible. Responsibility for the shortcomings of a lawyer chosen by the applicant cannot be imputed to the Government. Owing to the independence of the Bar, the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter for the accused and his representative. It was open to the applicant to avoid the situation complained of by securing the services of a specialist lawyer: 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