CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 février 2000

.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 15 February 2000 Voisine v. France - 27362/95 Judgment 8.2.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Non-communication of the submissions of the avocat général at the Court of Cassation: violation Facts : The applicant was ordered by a court of summary jurisdiction to pay a fine of 1,500   French francs (FRF) and had his driving-licence suspended for seven days for speeding. The Court of Appeal increased the fine to FRF 3,000 and the suspension of the licence to one month. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and filed pleadings which he had drafted unaided. He had no knowledge of either the avocat général’s submissions to the Court of Cassation or the date of the hearing. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the pleadings had been filed out of time; this rendered them inadmissible and the Court of Cassation therefore could not consider their contents. Law : Article 6 § 1: The applicant had not had the benefit of the practice by which the avocat général at the Court of Cassation informs the advisers of the parties of the contents of his submissions before the date of the hearing so that they may reply to them. This practice is reserved exclusively for the barristers at the Court of Cassation; however, the applicant had chosen, as was within his rights, to defend himself without the benefit of being represented by a barrister at the Court of Cassation. As a consequence, the applicant had not had access to the submissions of the avocat général and it followed that it had been impossible for him to reply to them before the Court of Cassation rejected his appeal. Accordingly, the applicant’s right to inter partes proceedings had been infringed. Even though the applicant had not applied for legal aid so that he could be defended by a specialist lawyer, it did not mean that he had waived the benefit of the safeguards relating to inter partes proceedings. Moreover, the specificity of the proceedings in the Court of Cassation could not justify depriving an appellant who had decided to defend himself, as he was entitled to do, of the procedural safeguards protecting the right to a fair trial. Conclusion: violation (5 votes to 2). Article 41: As to costs, the Court found that no amount should be awarded for costs incurred in the domestic proceedings. By contrast, the Court awarded FRF 10,000 for the costs incurred before the institutions of the Convention. The judges Costa and Jungwiert expressed the same dissenting opinion.   © 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