CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 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 } .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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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 April 1996 Remli v. France - 16839/90 Judgment 23.4.1996 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Rhône Assize Court's refusal of application by a French defendant of Algerian origin to have formal note taken of racist remark allegedly made by one of the jurors outside the courtroom and which had been recorded in a written witness statement: 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.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The Government's preliminary objections 1.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)   Complaint based on Article 6 of the Convention Recapitulation of Court's case-law - applicant had made use of an effective remedy. Conclusion : objection dismissed (seven votes to two). (b)   Complaint based on Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 6 Complaint not raised in the national courts. Conclusion : objection allowed (unanimously). 2.   Application out of time Appeal on points of law against the refusal to make an entry in the record had not been a futile step and had therefore had the effect at the very least of postponing the beginning of the six-month period. B.   Merits of the complaint Reference to principles laid down in Court's case-law concerning independence and impartiality, which apply to jurors as to professional and lay judges. Not for Court to rule on evidential value of written witness statement or on whether the racist remark attributed to the juror in question had actually been made - it noted merely that the Assize Court had dismissed the application to have formal note taken of that remark without examining the evidence submitted to it. Article 6 § 1 imposes an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it is "an impartial tribunal" within the meaning of that provision where this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit - no such check in the instant case. Conclusion : violation (five votes to four). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated for by the judgment. B.   Retrial or reduction of sentence: no jurisdiction to make an order to that effect against a Contracting State. C.   Costs and expenses: assessed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant a specified sum for costs and expenses (eight votes to one).   © 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