CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s7015FBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:11pt } .s189D71EE { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } 525 29.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Hakimi v. Belgium (application no 665/08)     A UNILATERAL DECLARATION IS REJECTED TO FACILITATE THE ADOPTION OF MEASURES IN THE applicant’S FAVOUR   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts The applicant, Abdelkader Hakimi, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1965 and is currently in prison in Andenne (Belgium). On 15 September 2006 he was convicted in his absence by the Brussels Court of Appeal to eight years’ imprisonment and a fine of 2,500 euros (EUR) for participation in the activities of a terrorist group. That judgment upheld a judgment of the Brussels Criminal Court dated 16 February 2006 sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment and a EUR 2,500 fine. The judgment was served on the applicant the same day in Saint-Gilles Prison by the prison’s deputy governor, in French and without an interpreter (although the applicant had been assisted by an interpreter throughout the investigation and during his court appearances) and without any reference being made to the period of 15 days during which he could apply to have the judgment set aside. Almost a month and a half later, on 29 October 2006, Mr Hakimi lodged an application to have the Court of Appeal judgment set aside. He complained, among other things, of not having had the services of an interpreter when the judgment was served on him and of the refusal of the prison authorities to provide him with information concerning the possibilities of appeal.   On 9 March 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected Mr Hakimi’s application to set aside the judgment as being out of time. Basing its ruling on a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 21 June 2006, it held that there was no domestic or international norm directly applicable in Belgian law requiring convicted persons to be informed of the avenues of appeal open to them, the authorities competent to hear such appeals or the time-limits to be complied with. On 27 June 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment, ruling that neither the Convention nor the applicable legal provisions required the record of service of a conviction handed down in the person’s absence to mention the right to appeal or the time allowed in which to exercise that right. Following the Court’s judgment in a similar case in 2007 (see Da Luz Domingues Ferreira v.Belgium ), the Belgian authorities adopted a series of measures as a result of which the possibilities of appeal are now systematically explained when judgments are served on persons in the applicant’s situation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 6 § 1, Mr Hakimi complained of the fact that his application to set aside the judgment convicting him in his absence had been rejected as being out of time. He stressed the fact that he had not been informed by the prison authorities of the time-limit for applying to have the judgment set aside. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 December 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Mr Hakimi expressly indicated that his application to the Court was aimed at securing the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him in Belgium, which in principle had been finally concluded. A measure of this kind could indeed be envisaged at the stage of execution of a Court judgment finding a violation of the Convention. Belgian law allowed the Court of Cassation to agree to the reopening of criminal proceedings “ if it [had] been established by a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that there [had] been a violation of [the Convention] or one of the additional Protocols ”. However, it was not clear whether it was possible to accede to such a request following a unilateral declaration by the Government. In the present case the Belgian authorities had proposed acknowledging unilaterally that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and paying Mr Hakimi EUR 10,000. In the circumstances, the Court rejected the proposal and decided to give judgment on the merits of the application.   As to the merits, the Court referred to its judgment in Da Luz Domingues Ferreira (in which a judgment served on the applicant, who was in prison abroad, likewise made no mention of the time allowed for appeal). In that case the Court held that the refusal by the Court of Appeal to reopen the proceedings, which had been conducted in the applicant’s absence, and the rejection of the applicant’s application to set aside his conviction as being out of time, had deprived him of his right of access to a court. The Court therefore reached the same conclusion in the case of Mr Hakimi, namely that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1.   Lastly, the Court noted that it was clear from the applicant’s observations that he was waiving any claim for compensation for the damage alleged (Article 41, just satisfaction); the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. It further reiterated that when it found that an applicant had been convicted in breach of one of the guarantees of a fair trial, as in the present case, the most appropriate form of redress was, in principle, for the individual concerned to be retried or for the proceedings to be reopened, in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.   ***   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) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) 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.