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 } .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 15 February 2000 Prinz v. Austria - 23867/94 Judgment 8.2.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence in person Refusal to allow appellant to attend hearing of plea of nullity and appeal: no violation Facts : The applicant's detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders was ordered by the Regional Court, which found that he had threatened various people with murder but could not be held responsible because he was suffering from mental illness. The applicant, assisted by official defence counsel, lodged a plea of nullity and an appeal. Defence counsel did not file any grounds of appeal and did not request that the applicant be permitted to attend the hearing. The applicant personally filed submissions and maintains that he also unsuccessfully requested leave to attend the hearing. The Supreme Court hearing was held in his absence and both the plea of nullity and the appeal were rejected. While noting that the applicant had not submitted any grounds of appeal, the court examined the trial court's findings regarding the dangerous nature of the applicant in the future, which he had submitted in his plea of nullity. Law : Government's preliminary objection:   The Court decided to join to the merits the Government's preliminary objection, in which they claimed that the applicant had failed to make an explicit request to be brought before the Supreme Court, as opposed to his request to attend as an observer. Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c): The hearing on the plea of nullity, relating only to questions of law, did not necessitate the applicant's presence. In this case, the applicant's plea of nullity related to procedural and legal matters and there were no special circumstances warranting his personal presence, in particular no indication that defence counsel did not effectively ensure the applicant's defence. There was thus no violation of Article 6 in that respect. With regard to the appeals against sentence, the court examined whether the conditions for placement in a psychiatric institution were met, but no new factual elements were adduced and the court's   task was limited to a review of the findings of the lower court which had obtained expert evidence and heard the applicant directly. He had not been convicted and since the prosecution had not appealed the court had no power to convict and impose a regular prison sentence, so that there was no risk of an increase in sentence. Moreover, placement in a psychiatric institution is a preventive measure, the necessity of which has to be reviewed at least annually. Having regard to the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the case and to what was at stake for the applicant, it was not essential that he be present at the hearing in person. The Supreme Court could adequately review the lower court's decision on the basis of the case-file, including the expert evidence and in the absence of a formally valid request for leave to attend the hearing, the court was not under a positive obligation to ensure the applicant's presence. There were special features justifying the applicant not being present. Conclusion : no violation (unanimous).   © 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