CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 octobre 2000

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   704   10.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DAKTARAS v. LITHUANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case of Daktaras v. Lithuania. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention. The Court awarded no damages to the applicant under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, but granted him 10,354.22 Lithuanian litai (LTL) for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Henrikas Daktaras, a Lithuanian national born in 1957, is portrayed in the Lithuanian media as a Mafia leader . He was found guilty on two counts of obtaining property by threats of force and inducing another to pervert the course of justice, sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment and his property was confiscated. He is currently detained in a prison in Vilnius.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 May 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1998. A hearing was held on 14 March 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the Supreme Court which examined his case at cassation level had not been an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that the cassation judges had been appointed by the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, to examine a cassation petition lodged by the same President under Article 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The applicant further complained under 6 § 2 of the Convention that the prosecutor had commented that his guilt had been proved before the trial had started, thereby breaching the presumption of innocence.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated its case-law that impartiality within the meaning of this provision meant an absence of bias and outside influence on the judges deciding the case. It further recalled that, under the objective test of impartiality under Article 6 § 1, appearances were of importance.   The Court found that, by lodging a cassation petition in the present case, the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court had taken on the role of the prosecutor. In addition to his organisational and managerial functions, the same President had constituted the court which was to examine the cassation case and had appointed the judge rapporteur. In the light of these circumstances, the Court held that, from an objective standpoint, there were insufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to the absence of inappropriate pressure on the Supreme Court.   The Court concluded the applicant’s doubts as to the impartiality of the Supreme Court could be said to be objectively justified.   Consequently, there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 2   The Court observed that the presumption of innocence required public officials to be very careful in choosing their language in regard to criminal proceedings where the accused’s guilt had not been established by a competent court. Nonetheless, not only the actual words of a public authority, but also the context in which that statement had been made were to be taken into account in assessing compliance with Article 6 § 2.   The Court noted that the impugned statements had been made by a prosecutor not in a context independent of the criminal proceedings themselves, as for instance at a press conference, but in the course of a reasoned decision at a preliminary stage of those proceedings. The Court held that, in asserting that the applicant’s guilt had been “proved” by the evidence in the case-file, the prosecutor had used the same terminology as the applicant in his request to discontinue the case. The Court considered that, while the use of the term “proved” was unfortunate, both the applicant and the prosecutor were actually referring not to the question whether the applicant’s guilt had been established by the evidence, but to the question whether the case-file had disclosed sufficient evidence of the applicant’s guilt to justify proceeding to trial. The Court thus found no breach of Article 6   § 2.   Article 41   The applicant claimed LTL 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of a violation of the Convention. The Court rejected the above claim, holding that the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction.   The Court awarded the applicant LTL 10,354.22 for legal fees and expenses.   ***   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.   [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.