CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   602 28.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LEE DAVIES v. BELGIUM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Lee Davies v. Belgium (application no. 18704/05). The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Lee Martin Davies, is a British national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bobbing Hill, Sittingbourne (United Kingdom). He was in Belgium in 1998 when police officers entered private land, without a search warrant, and discovered the applicant and another person, the tenant of the site, as well as a large quantity of cannabis. On the basis of the evidence thus obtained, Mr Davies was charged with drug trafficking and conspiracy. He was acquitted at first instance in May 2001 because the evidence against him had been obtained illegally. The public prosecutor appealed against that decision, arguing that the police officers had acted in accordance with Belgian law, under which police officers could at any time enter “places accessible to the public” and   “abandoned immovable property”. The Ghent Court of Appeal convicted the applicant in June 2004, holding that although only part of the search had been lawful, the fairness of the trial, taken as a whole, had not been affected. An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed on 16   November 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 May 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Mr Davies complained in particular of a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the evidence on the basis of which he had been prosecuted had been obtained illegally.   Decision of the Court   The question of admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for national law. The Court’s role was to ascertain whether the proceedings taken as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was collected, had been fair.   The Ghent Court of Appeal had found that the search had not been fully legal, but that this had not affected the value of the evidence collected, and no violation of the right to respect for private life and home had been established.   In considering whether the proceedings taken as a whole were fair, it was important to ascertain whether the rights of the defence had been respected and, in particular, whether the applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the illegally obtained evidence and to object to its use. When the quality of the evidence was very sound and admitted no doubt, the need for further evidence to support it decreased. In Mr Davies’ case the circumstances in which the impugned evidence had been obtained shed no doubt whatsoever on its reliability or accuracy. Furthermore, he had had an opportunity to challenge the evidence at three levels of jurisdiction and to object to its use and to the resulting findings.   The merits of the criminal charges against Mr Davies had therefore been examined fairly, in keeping with the requirements of Article 6 §   1, and there had been no violation of that provision of the Convention.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.