CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7F64397A { width:26.83pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     369   23.5.2000     Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VAN PELT v. FRANCE     In a judgment [1] delivered at Strasbourg on 23 May 2000 in the case of Van Pelt v. France, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (by five votes to two), a violation of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, taken together, as regards proceedings before a court of appeal to which the case had been remitted (unanimously) and a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the Court of Cassation’s decision that the applicant’s appeal was inadmissible (unanimously). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 70,388 French francs (FRF) for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The case concerned an application lodged by a Dutch national, Leonardus Van Pelt, who was born in 1950 and lives in Eindhoven. He had been charged on 8 November 1987 with a drugs-related offence, smuggling and aiding and abetting fraud.   When the applicant, who was in hospital, had failed to appear before the court of appeal to which his case had been remitted, his application for an adjournment was dismissed and his lawyers were refused permission to make submissions on his behalf. Furthermore, his appeal to the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible because he failed to comply with a warrant requiring him to surrender to custody that had been issued when he lodged his appeal.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 April 1996 and declared admissible by the Court on 30 March 1999.   A hearing was held on 16 November 1999. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar ,.   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He also alleged that he had been unable to take proper advantage of the remedies available to him and relied on both Articles 6 and, to the extent necessary, 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   As regards the length of the proceedings (over eight years and nine months) the Court found no unreasonable delay attributable to the judicial authorities concerned, at either the committal or the trial stage.   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, taken together   The Court held that the fact that it had been impossible for the applicant’s lawyers to make submissions on the merits of the case contravened those provisions as the right of every accused to be effectively represented by a lawyer was a fundamental feature of the right to a fair trial. An accused did not forfeit that right merely by not being present at the hearing.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The Court duly noted the Government’s explanation at the hearing that the Court of Cassation had abandoned the case-law which had led to the applicant’s appeal being declared inadmissible. The Court pointed out that it had previously held that declaring an appeal to the Court of Cassation inadmissible solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with a warrant requiring him to surrender to custody constituted an unreasonable interference with his right to a court and thus to his right to a fair trial.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court awarded the applicant 70,338 FRF for costs and expenses.   Judges Tulkens and Bratza expressed a dissenting opinion and Judge Loucaides a separate opinion. These are annexed to the judgment.   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.