CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 juin 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 511 24.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Mancel and Branquart v. France (application no 22349/06)     LACK OF IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT OF CASSATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A LOCAL POLITICIAN AND A COMPANY MANAGER   By a majority   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants, Jean-François Mancel and Roland Branquart, are two French nationals who were born in 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Paris. In May 1998 they were placed under investigation for, among other offences, acquiring or retaining a prohibited interest (Mr   Mancel), and aiding and abetting that offence (Mr Branquart). Mr Mancel, who was chairman of the Oise département council at the relevant time, was accused of having received indirect benefits from the company managed by Mr Branquart, which had been awarded the council’s communications contract.   The applicants were committed for trial before the Beauvais Criminal Court and on 26   October 2000 were sentenced respectively to six and four months’ imprisonment, suspended. They were ordered to pay criminal fines of 200,000 French francs (approximately 30,500 euros (EUR)) each and were stripped of their civic rights for two years. On 29 November 2001, however, the Amiens Court of Appeal acquitted both the applicants. After a prosecution appeal on points of law, the Court of Cassation reversed and quashed the appeal judgment on 27 November 2002 and remitted the case to the Paris Court of Appeal. Basing its findings on the facts established by the Amiens Court of Appeal, it ruled that the applicants’ acquittal had been in breach of the Criminal Code as the existence of the offence had been established, as had the applicants’ intention to commit it. On 14 April 2005 the Paris Court of Appeal found the applicants guilty as charged. It sentenced Mr   Mancel to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended, and to a fine of EUR   30,000; Mr Branquart was sentenced to an eight-month suspended prison term and a fine of EUR   20,000. On 30 November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged by the applicants against that judgment, after verifying that the Court of Appeal had established both the objective and intentional elements of the offence for which they had been prosecuted.   Seven of the nine judges who rendered this judgment had been members of the bench of the Court of Cassation which ruled on the first appeal on points of law in 2002.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, Mr Mancel and Mr Branquart alleged that the formation of the Court of Cassation which upheld their conviction had not been impartial, as seven of the nine judges had already ruled on their case previously. In their view, the Court of Cassation should have a different composition when considering an appeal against a judgment given after an initial ruling had been quashed.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court noted first of all that seven of the nine judges in the formation of the Court of Cassation which examined the appeal against the judgment convicting the applicants had previously been on the bench which ruled on the appeal on points of law against the judgment acquitting them. It took the view that this was liable a priori to raise doubts in the applicants’ minds as to the impartiality of the Court of Cassation.   The Court therefore had to consider whether, bearing in mind the task facing the judges of the Court of Cassation in ruling on the initial appeal on points of law (against the acquittal judgment), they had in fact been biased – or at least given the appearance of bias – when it came to deciding subsequently on the second appeal (against the judgment convicting the applicants). That would be the case, in particular, if the issues they had to consider in the second appeal were similar to those on which they had ruled on the first occasion.   In that connection the Court observed that, following the first appeal on points of law, the Court of Cassation had considered, in the light of the factual elements, whether the offence had actually been committed, finding both the objective and intentional elements of the offence to be made out. Following the second appeal the Court of Cassation was once again called upon to verify the assessment of the constitutive elements of the offence made by the Court of Appeal to which the case had been remitted.   In such circumstances there had indeed been objective reasons to fear that the Court of Cassation might have been biased or prejudiced in taking its decision on the second appeal on points of law. Accordingly, the Court held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the applicants claimed compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained as a result of the violation. However, the Court held by four votes to three that the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the damage sustained. It further held that France was to pay 3,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants for costs and expenses.   Judge Berro-Lefèvre expressed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Maruste and Villiger. The opinion is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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 .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (telephone : + 33 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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.