CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 674 22.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1]   Pietiläinen v. Finland (application no. 13566/06)   COURT FINDS DISCONTINUATION OF APPLICANT’S APPEAL DUE TO HIS ABSENCE AT TRIAL A PARTICULARLY SEVERE SANCTION   Violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in English .)   Principal facts   The applicant, Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki.   On 24 February 2004 Mr Pietiläinen was convicted of aggravated fraud and given a one year and eight month prison sentence. He appealed and was subsequently summoned to attend six oral hearings between 28 February and 24 March 2005. Witnesses were heard between 14 and 24 March 2005, and the applicant in particular on 15 March 2005. However, he did not attend the first of the hearings; he was represented by counsel. Due to the applicant’s absence on that day the Helsinki Appeal Court decided to discontinue his appeal.   In March 2005 he notified the Appeal Court that he had been absent due to illness and provided a medical certificate. He further argued that discontinuing his appeal was unfair both from the standpoint of national law (it not being necessary to summon an applicant to appear in person unless his or her presence was strictly necessary) and of the European Court of Human Rights’ established case-law (according to which an accused could not be deprived of his or her right to legal assistance solely on the ground that he or she had not attended a hearing).   The Appeal Court rejected the applicant’s claims as the medical certificate was dated after the day of the hearing in question and, in any case, his state of health was not such as to constitute a valid excuse for absence. In October 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, Mr   Pietiläinen complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against him.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President, Giovanni Bonello (Malta), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges, and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that it was the Helsinki Appeal Court’s duty to allow Mr   Pietiläinen’s counsel to defend him on 28 February 2005, even in his absence. Indeed, the scope of that particular hearing was not entirely clear and did not apparently concern issues for which the applicant’s attendance in person had been strictly necessary; his presence had essentially been required from 14 March 2005 onwards when, according to the procedural plan set up by the court, witnesses were to be heard. Nor had it been indicated in the summons that just one day’s absence would be regarded as absence from the whole main hearing. The discontinuation of the applicant’s case had therefore constituted a particularly rigid and severe sanction, in particular in view of the rights of the defence and the requirements of a fair trial. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c).   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)     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.