CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 décembre 2001

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 37 December 2001 P.S. v. Germany - 33900/96 Judgment 20.12.2001 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Absence of opportunity for accused to question victim of alleged sexual abuse: violation Facts : The applicant was convicted of sexually abusing an eight-year old girl. The court did not hear the girl as a witness, on the ground that it might be harmful to her mental state, but relied on evidence from her mother and a police officer who had questioned her. The applicant’s request for a psychological examination of the girl was refused. His appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court after it had obtained a psychologist’s report on the girl’s credibility. It also refused to hear the girl as a witness. Law : Article 6 § 1 and   § 3 (d) – At no stage was the girl questioned by a judge and the applicant had no opportunity to observe her demeanour under direct questioning and thus test her reliability. The reasons given by the first instance court for refusing to hear her and in dismissing the applicant’s request for an expert opinion were rather vague and speculative and did not, therefore, appear relevant, and although the appeal court obtained a psychological report, this was one and a half years after the events. In the light of this, the procedure followed by the courts did not enable the defence to challenge the girl’s evidence, reported in court by third persons. Moreover, the information given by her was the only direct evidence of the offence and the courts based the applicant’s conviction to a decisive extent on that information. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The applicant made no claims for just satisfaction.   © 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