CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     437   19.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ATLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   In a judgment [1] (available only in English) today notified in writing in the case Atlan v. the United Kingdom (application number 36533/97), the European Court of Human Rights 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 the violation itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. The Court awarded the applicants 15,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Armand Atlan and his son Thierry, both French nationals, were born in 1932 and 1970 respectively. Prior to the events in question they lived in Sao Paolo, Brazil. The second applicant died in June 1998 and the first applicant now lives in France.   On 5 July 1991, at the Crown Court at Isleworth, Middlesex, the applicants were convicted of illegally importing 18 kilograms of cocaine (with a street value of GBP   2-3   million) into Heathrow Airport, London, on 3 November 1990. The first applicant was sentenced to 18   years’ imprisonment and a confiscation order of GBP 1,918,489.60 with a further 10   years’ prison to be served in default of payment. The second applicant was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a confiscation order of GBP   6,140.66 or serve a further six months in prison   The applicants’ defence at trial was that they were diamond traders and had been falsely implicated in the drugs importation by a man named Rudi Steiner. However, they had no evidence to connect Mr Steiner to the suitcase full of drugs they claimed had been planted on them at Heathrow or to substantiate their belief that he was a Customs and Excise informer.   Under cross-examination the customs officers involved in the case refused either to confirm or deny whether or not they had used an informer. No evidence relating to an informer or to Mr Steiner was served on the defence or put before the judge and throughout the proceedings the prosecution repeatedly denied possessing any undisclosed relevant material.   In spring 1994, when their appeal was pending, the applicants learned from the French press ( Libération ) that a Swiss undercover police officer, Commissioner Cattaneo, had written a report, called “the Mato Grosso Report”, concerning his 1991 investigation into drug trafficking between Brazil and Europe. In early 1995 the applicants’ solicitor obtained a copy of the report. It mentioned Rudi Steiner, describing him as one of three regular informers of the Brazilian, Danish and French police. He was said to have an interest in stolen jewels and a long-term involvement in the traffic from Brazil to Europe of large quantities of cocaine, which he was able freely to obtain from the Brazilian police. The applicants provided a copy of the report to the prosecution, which declined to confirm or deny its authenticity or the truth of its contents, and again repeated that there was no undisclosed material relevant to the issues at trial.   The applicants added an additional ground of appeal coupled with an application for leave to call fresh evidence. They maintained that the Mato Grosso Report substantiated their suggestion at trial that Mr Steiner had had access both to stolen jewels and cocaine and that he enjoyed an established relationship with law enforcement agencies in Europe. At this stage, on or about 19 October 1995, the prosecution informed the defence that, contrary to earlier statements, unserved unused material did in fact exist, which the prosecution wished to place before the Court of Appeal in the absence of the applicants or their lawyers. The prosecution then applied ex parte to the Court of Appeal for a ruling whether it was entitled, on grounds of public interest immunity, not to disclose this material. On 16 February 1997, the Court of Appeal decided that justice did not require the disclosure of the public interest immunity evidence and on 20 February 1997 it dismissed the application for leave to appeal.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 February 1997. It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and allocated to the Third Section of the Court. In a decision of 10 October 2000 the Chamber declared the application admissible.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair trial in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 d) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     Decision of the Court   Article 6   The Court, referring to its judgment in the case of Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom , observed that Article 6 § 1 required in principle that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused. However, in some cases it might be necessary to withhold certain evidence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual (such as an informer whose life might be in danger) or to safeguard an important public interest (such as the need to keep secret police methods of investigation). Such non-disclosure would be acceptable under Article 6 only where strictly necessary and only where any difficulties caused to the defence were sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the courts.   The applicants’ defence at trial was that they had been falsely implicated in the importation of cocaine by a man known to them as Rudi Steiner, whom they believed to be a Customs and Excise informer. No evidence relating to an informer or to Mr Steiner was served on the defence or put before the judge, and under cross-examination the customs officers involved in the case refused either to confirm or deny whether they had used an informer or heard of Mr Steiner. Before and during the trial the prosecution asserted that there was no further unused relevant evidence in their possession which had not been served on the defence.   However, over four years after the applicants’ conviction, and prior to the hearing of their appeal following their discovery of new evidence about Mr Steiner’s activities, the prosecution informed them that, contrary to earlier statements, unserved unused material did in fact exist. Following an ex parte hearing, the Court of Appeal decided that it was not necessary to disclose this evidence to the applicants.   Although the nature of the undisclosed evidence has never been revealed, the sequence of events raised a strong suspicion that it concerned Mr Steiner, his relationship with British Customs and Excise, and his role in the investigation and arrest of the applicants: information which was central to the applicants’ defence. As it had explained in the above-mentioned Rowe and Davis judgment, the Court considered that the trial judge is best placed to decide whether or not the non-disclosure of public interest immunity evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to the defence. The prosecution’s failure to lay the evidence in question before the trial judge and to permit him to rule on the question of disclosure deprived the applicants of a fair trial and there had, therefore, been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     Article 41   The Court was unable to speculate as to whether the applicants would have been convicted had the violation not occurred. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage which the applicants might have suffered. It awarded them GBP 15,000 in respect of legal costs 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.