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 Stefanelli v. San Marino - 35396/97 Judgment 8.2.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing   before the trial judge: violation Facts : The applicant was questioned and detained in connection with proceedings relating to the unlawful marketing of products. The investigation was entrusted to a commissioner. The witnesses were examined and the defence pleadings filed. The commissioner held public hearings for examining witnesses. Having neither held a public hearing nor seen the applicant, the first instance judge sentenced her to four years and six months’ imprisonment and ordered a protective measure of supervision because she was considered dangerous. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. The same commissioner handled the case for the investigation on appeal. The appeal judge upheld the applicant’s conviction; reduced the sentence to three years and lifted the preventive measure of supervision. Law : Article 6 § 1: According to the Government; hearings dedicated to the examination of witnesses had been held at first instance and were subject to appeal had the applicant wished to lodge one. However, at first instance these hearings had been held before the commissioner, who had only investigative duties. The same had apparently occurred on appeal. As a result, the proceedings had taken place without a hearing at first instance and on appeal before the judicial officer called upon to take a decision on the merits. Conclusion : violation (unanimous) Article 41: The Court found that the applicant had undoubtedly suffered non-pecuniary damage and awarded her the sum of 10,000,000 Italian lire (ITL). In respect of costs and expenses, the Court awarded her ITL 9,000,000. (The applicant’s claim was expressed in euros.)   © 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