CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 avril 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } 330 22.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Chesne v. France (application no. 29808/06)   DOUBTS CONCERNING THE IMPARTIALITY OF TWO JUDGES WHO CONVICTED A DRUG TRAFFICKER WERE JUSTIFIED   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mehdi Chesne, is a French national who was born in 1980 and lives in Paris. On 25 March 2003, in the course of an investigation into suspected drug trafficking, police found substantial quantities of drugs and weapons in a garage rented by the applicant. Mr   Chesne, who had a previous conviction for drug trafficking, admitted having resumed his activity and described the organisation of the operation in detail.   On 28 March 2003 the applicant was placed under investigation for a drug-related offence committed as a repeat offender and was remanded in custody. He appealed against his pre ‑ trial detention to the investigation division of the Orléans Court of Appeal, made up of three judges including Ms C. On 17 April 2003 the investigation division ruled that a court supervision measure would be ineffective and upheld the detention order. In reaching that conclusion the judges, while acknowledging that the investigation revealed some inconsistencies at that stage, found that Mr Chesne “[had] acted very much as a professional drug trafficker, making a substantial profit in the process” and was considered as “one of the main traffickers”. The judges also took into account the applicant’s previous conviction.   On the merits, on 30 June 2004, the Orléans Criminal Court found Mr Chesne guilty of unauthorised purchase of drugs as a repeat offender and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. After lodging an appeal the applicant’s lawyers learned that the bench of the Orléans Court of Appeal that would hear the case would include Ms C. (president), who had been on the bench which adopted the judgment of 17 April 2003, and Mr L. The latter had, on 31 July 2003, ruled on the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and that of his girlfriend, whom he had described as the “live-in partner of one of the main traffickers ... who took over from him when he was absent”. Mr Chesne’s lawyers challenged the two judges concerned, questioning their impartiality. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the challenge. On 7 December 2004 the Criminal Appeals Division upheld the first-instance judgment but reduced the sentence to ten years’ imprisonment. On 16 November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, Mr Chesne alleged, in particular, that the reasons given for the judgments of 17 April and 31 July 2003 (concerning his and his girlfriend’s continued pre ‑ trial detention) demonstrated that the judges Ms C. and Mr L. had no longer been impartial in ruling on the merits of the case.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 July 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), judges , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Given the nature of Mr Chesne’s complaint the Court confined its attention to ascertaining whether, quite apart from the personal conduct of the judges Ms C. and Mr L., there were ascertainable facts which might raise doubts as to their “objective” impartiality.   In that connection the Court reiterated that the mere fact that a judge had already taken pre ‑ trial decisions, including decisions relating to detention, could not by itself be regarded as justifying concerns about his or her impartiality. The issue of a person’s continued pre ‑ trial detention was distinct from the issue of his or her guilt: suspicions could not be thus equated with a formal finding of guilt. Nevertheless, the particular circumstances of a given case could lead the Court to a different conclusion.   In the present case the Court took the view that the reasons given by the investigation division of the Orléans Court of Appeal in the judgments of 17 April and 31 July 2003 (such as “[he had] acted very much as a professional drug trafficker” and was “one of the main traffickers”) amounted more to a preconceived view of the applicant’s guilt than to a mere description of a “state of suspicion” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law.   Consequently, the objective impartiality of the two judges of the Criminal Appeals Division of the Orléans Court of Appeal – who had been members of the investigation division of the Orléans Court of Appeal which delivered the impugned judgments of 17 April and 31   July   2003 – could appear to be open to doubt. It followed that the applicant’s fears could be considered to be objectively justified.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to just satisfaction under Article 41, the Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. It further held that France was to pay the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.