CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF78A0CCA { width:178.18pt; display:inline-block } .sFEAAE71C { width:327.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     738   16.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING the Netherlands   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final [1] :     SECTION 1   (1)     Eliazer v. the Netherlands (application no. 38055/97)   No violation Article 6 § 1 taken with Article 6 § 3   No violation Article 14 On 23 January 1996, Gerson Eliazer, a Dutch national, was convicted in the Netherlands Antilles on charges of possession of about one kilogram of cocaine. As he had failed to appear at his trial, he was tried and convicted in proceedings held in absentia . His subsequent cassation appeal was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on the ground that he was not eligible to lodge such an appeal because, since he had been convicted in absentia , he should first file an objection against his conviction in order to obtain a retrial.   He complained of lack of access to the Supreme Court and of discriminatory treatment, in that, if he had been present at his trial, he would have been able to lodge a cassation appeal.   The Court found that the State’s interest in ensuring that as many cases as possible are tried in the presence of the accused before allowing access to cassation proceedings outweighed the accused’s concern to avoid the risk of being arrested by attending his trial.     In reaching this conclusion, the Court took into account the entirety of the proceedings, in particular the fact that the applicant’s lawyer had been heard in the appeal proceedings before the Joint Court of Justice even though the applicant had not appeared at these proceedings and that it was open to the applicant to secure access to the Supreme Court by initiating proceedings which would lead to a retrial of the charges against him subject to the condition that he attend the proceedings. In the Court’s view, it could not be said that such a system, which sought to balance the particular interests involved, was an unfair one. The decision declaring the applicant’s appeal in cassation inadmissible could not, therefore, be considered as a disproportionate limitation on the applicant’s right to access to court or one that deprived him of a fair trial.   The European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (access to court) and 3 (c) (right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Considering that the situation of a person convicted in absentia was not comparable to that of a person convicted following adversarial proceedings, in that the latter had attended his trial and the former had not, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention.   (The judgment is available only in English).   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.