CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 novembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 135 November 2010 Taxquet v. Belgium [GC] - 926/05 Judgment 16.11.2010 [GC] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Lack of adequate procedural safeguards to enable accused to understand reasons for jury’s guilty verdict in assize court: violation   Facts – Between 2003 and 2004 the applicant was tried by the Assize Court, together with seven co-defendants, on charges of murdering an honorary minister ( ministre d’Etat ), and attempting to murder the latter’s partner. In order to reach a verdict, the lay jury had to answer thirty-two questions, four of which concerned the applicant. Following the jury’s guilty verdict, the applicant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation dismissed his subsequent appeal on points of law against the Assize Court’s judgment. In a judgment of 13 January 2009 a Chamber of the European Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasons given in the Assize Court’s judgment (see Information Note no.   115). Law – Article 6 § 1: Several Council of Europe member States had a system of trial by jury, in which professional judges were unable to take part in the lay jurors’ deliberations on the verdict. This system, guided by the legitimate desire to involve citizens in the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the most serious offences, could not be called into question in this context. The Court had previously held that the absence of a reasoned verdict by a lay jury did not in itself breach Article   6. Nevertheless, for the requirements of a fair trial to be satisfied, sufficient safeguards had to be in place to enable the accused and the public to understand the verdict that was given. Such safeguards could consist, for example, in providing directions or guidance to the jurors on the legal issues at stake or the evidence adduced, putting precise, unequivocal questions to the jury to form a framework for the verdict, or offsetting the fact that no reasons were given for the jury’s answers. However, in the present case neither the indictment nor the questions to the jury had contained sufficient information as to the applicant’s involvement in the offences of which he was accused. The indictment had mentioned each of the offences with which he was charged but had not indicated which items of evidence the prosecution could use against him. The questions put to the jury by the President of the Assize Court had been succinctly worded and identical for all the defendants. Even when viewed in conjunction with the indictment, they had not enabled the applicant to ascertain which items of evidence and factual circumstances had caused the jury to reach a guilty verdict against him. He had been unable to understand, for example, what the jury had perceived to be his precise role in relation to the other defendants, why the offence had been classified as premeditated murder ( assassinat ) rather than murder ( meurtre ), and why the aggravating factor of premeditation had been taken into account in his case as regards the attempted murder of the minister’s partner. This shortcoming was all the more problematic because the case was both factually and legally complex and the trial had lasted more than two months, with a large number of people giving evidence. Lastly, the national system made no provision for an ordinary appeal against judgments of the Assize Court. Appeals to the Court of Cassation concerned points of law alone and thus did not provide the accused with adequate clarification of the reasons for the conviction. Accordingly, the applicant had not been afforded sufficient safeguards to enable him to understand why he had been found guilty, and the proceedings had thus been unfair. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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