CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 janvier 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     69   30.01.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VAUDELLE v. FRANCE   In a judgment [1] 1 notified today in writing in the case of Vaudelle v. France, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (defence rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 50,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Marcel Vaudelle, a French national born in 1934 in Tours, was represented before the Court by Hélène Farge, a member of the Court of Cassation and Conseil d’Etat Bar.   The application concerned criminal proceedings brought against the applicant while he was under his son’s supervisory guardianship. The summons to attend the trial was sent only to the applicant, who received it on 7 October 1995 in a registered letter. The applicant did not appear at his trial. Being deemed to have been lawfully informed of the hearing, he was tried under the adversarial procedure. The judgment of the criminal court, which had sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment, of which 8 were suspended, and probation for 18 months, and had ordered him to pay damages for indecently assaulting two minors under 15, was served on him on 19 October 1995. He did not appeal against this judgment, which accordingly became final, and he served his prison sentence from 16 April to 19 July 1996.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application [Note1] was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7   August 1996 and has been examined since 1 November 1998 by the European Court of Human Rights. The application was declared admissible on 23 May 2000 in so far as it concerned Marcel Vaudelle. The complaints submitted by Alain Vaudelle, the applicant’s son, were declared inadmissible. A hearing was held on 19 September 2000.         Judgment was delivered by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), President, Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges, and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [Note2] [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that the summons and notification of the judgment had been sent to him only and not to his supervisory guardian also, so that he had been prevented from exercising the rights of defence afforded to him under Article 6 of the Convention, since he did not have the mental capacity to exercise his defence rights, namely the right to attend his trial and defend himself - as evidenced by the fact that it had been necessary to place him under supervisory guardianship.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 of the Convention   The Court considered that in the case in question, which concerned a serious criminal charge and an adult placed under supervisory guardianship, the national authorities had failed to ensure that the applicant could understand the proceedings, to inform him in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him within the meaning of Article 6 § 3(a), and to enable the criminal court to try the case fairly. The Court therefore considered that there had been a violation of Article 6.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court decided to award the applicant FRF 50,000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage alleged.   Judge Costa expressed a concurring opinion, which is 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 the case to the Grand Chamber.   [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [Note1]   For transitional-period cases. [Note2]   Reported speech is, in principle, to be used.