CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 1993

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 No. November 1993 Poitrimol v. France - 14032/88 Judgment 23.11.1993 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Judgment of a court of appeal, delivered after proceedings deemed to be inter partes , convicting intentionally absent defendant and refusing to let him be represented by his counsel: 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 §§ 1 AND 3 (C) OF THE CONVENTION Proceedings held in an accused's absence not in principle incompatible with the Convention if person concerned could subsequently obtain from a court which had heard him a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact. Ruling unnecessary on whether that latter requirement applied when accused had waived his right to appear and to defend himself, since in the instant case the applicant intended to be represented by a lawyer. The issue was whether an accused who decided not to appear in person was entitled to "legal assistance of his own choosing". Although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, was one of the fundamental features of a fair trial - a person charged with a criminal offence did not lose the benefit of that right merely on account of not being present at the trial.   Defendant's appearance in person was of capital importance, whence need for legislature to be able to discourage unjustified absences - unnecessary to decide whether permissible in principle to punish such absences by ignoring right to legal assistance - suppression of that right disproportionate in the circumstances. The inadmissibility of the appeal on points of law, on grounds connected with applicant's having absconded, likewise amounted to a disproportionate sanction. Conclusion : violation (five votes to four). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: claim for compensation dismissed for want of any causal link with breach. B.   Costs and expenses: claim for compensation dismissed in respect of proceedings in Court of Appeal, but allowed in whole in respect of proceedings in Court of Cassation and in part in respect of those before the Convention institutions. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant 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