CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mai 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 18 May 2000 Vaudelle v. France (dec.) - 35683/97 Decision 23.5.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3 Rights of defence Failure to inform an accused’s curator of criminal proceedings against him, thus depriving him of the possibility of organising his defence: admissible Article 34 Victim Failure to inform an accused’s curator of criminal proceedings against him, thus depriving him of the possibility of organising his defence: admissible In March 1995 the first applicant was placed under the supervisory guardianship of his son, the second applicant, following a judgment in which it had been found that on account of the deterioration of his mental faculties he had to be represented and assisted in his civil transactions. One month earlier a complaint had been lodged against him for indecent assaults on minors. He did not respond to two summonses, issued at the prosecution’s request, requiring him to undergo a psychiatric examination. Nor did he attend the hearing fixed by the tribunal de grande instance , even though he had acknowledged receipt of the summons addressed to him in person. He was not represented at the hearing. The tribunal de grande instance sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. The judgment was served on him at a later date. The second applicant then asserted that he had not been informed of his father’s arrest and conviction until the day when the latter began to serve his sentence, all the summonses having been sent directly to the first applicant only. He complained unsuccessfully to the public prosecutor’s office, arguing that his father had not been in a position to conduct his own defence and that he, the second applicant, should have been informed of events in the proceedings so that he could organise his father’s defence. The guardianship judge, to whom he had also applied, explained that the supervisory guardianship under which the first applicant had been placed was a system of assistance only which did not entail an obligation to inform the person appointed as supervisory guardian of criminal proceedings against the person under his supervisory guardianship. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (a), (b) and (d): As the person directly concerned by the act or omission complained of, the first applicant could validly claim to be a victim in that he alleged that he had not the means needed to organise his defence at his disposal because he had been placed under supervisory guardianship. The second applicant, however, who had not been a party to the criminal proceedings, but only the supervisory guardian of his father, the defendant in those proceedings, could not claim to be a victim.   © 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