CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 décembre 1996

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. December 1996 Vacher v. France - 20368/92 Judgment 17.12.1996 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-3-b Adequate time Preparation of defence Convicted appellant hindered in presenting his appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation by lack of time-limit for filing pleading: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Complaint of violation of Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention -outside scope of case as defined by Commission's decision on admissibility. II.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (B) AND (C) OF THE CONVENTION Applicant complained of lack of time-limit for filing a pleading in support of his appeal on points of law - Court did not have to assess French system for preparing criminal appeals on points of law for hearing. Manner in which Article 6 applied depended upon special features of the proceedings involved - account had to taken of the role of the Court of Cassation. Putting the onus on convicted appellants to find out when an allotted period of time started to run or expired was not compatible with the "diligence" which the Contracting States had to exercise to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 were enjoyed in an effective manner. Since there had been no fixed date for filing a pleading and Court of Cassation took less time than usual to hear appeal, without applicant being either warned of the fact by the registry or able to foresee it, he had been deprived of possibility of putting his case in the Court of Cassation in a concrete and effective manner. It was unnecessary for Court to rule on complaint of a violation of the principle of equality of arms between applicant and prosecution. Conclusion : violation (six votes to three). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: finding of a violation constituted sufficient reparation. B.   Other claims: Court had no power to grant remedies sought. C.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement of a sum assessed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay the applicant specified sum for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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