CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 septembre 1999

.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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF9A986A5 { width:12.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     461   14.9.99   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF VOISINE v. FRANCE   Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 2.30 p.m.   The applicant     The case concerns an application (application no. 27362/95) brought by a French national, Rémy Voisine, who was born in 1950 and lives in Paris.   Summary of the facts     On 14 January 1994 the applicant was convicted of a speeding offence by Beaune Police Court, which fined him 1,500 French francs (FRF) and banned him from driving for seven days. In a judgment of 25 May 1994, the Dijon Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and imposed a heavier sentence, increasing the fine to FRF 3,000 and the ban to one month. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. His written pleadings before that court were lodged by the lawyer who had represented him before the courts below. On 4   January 1995 the Court of Cassation dismissed that appeal.   Complaint     The applicant contends that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, he did not have a fair trial before the Court of Cassation. He complains that despite his having elected to act in person before the Court of Cassation, Principal State Counsel’s submissions were not communicated to him and he was given no opportunity to reply to them at the hearing.   Procedure     The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3   April 1995. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 21 October 1998 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case was brought before the Court by the French Government on 15 February 1999.   Composition of the Court     The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:     Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Judges, Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Substitute Judges.   and also Sally Dolle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Jean-François Dobelle , Agent , Bruno Cotte , Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation , Claire d’Urso and Pierre Boussaroque , Advisers ;   Applicants:   Yannick Rio , Counsel .       After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or   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 1959 in Strasbourg 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.