CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 décembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     718   14.12.1999 [Note2] Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KHALFAOUI v. FRANCE     In a judgment [1] delivered at Strasbourg on 14 December 1999 in the case of Khalfaoui v. France (application no.   34791/97), the European Court of Human Rights held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the European Convention on Human Rights [Note3] . Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant FRF 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 43,898 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   Faouzi Khalfaoui, an Algerian national who was born in 1961 and now lives in Tunisia, was convicted of indecent assault on 21 November 1995 by the Besançon Court of Appeal. With a view to lodging an appeal on points of law, he asked the Court of Appeal to grant him exemption on medical grounds from the obligation to surrender to custody before the appeal hearing in the Court of Cassation. The obligation to surrender to custody is laid down by Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A convicted person who fails to surrender to custody without obtaining an exemption forfeits the right to appeal on points of law. In the present case the Court of Appeal refused to grant exemption by a judgment of 19 September 1996 and on 24 September the Court of Cassation ruled that Mr Khalfaoui had forfeited the right to appeal.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 January 1997. On 1 November 1998 the case was transmitted to the Court and allocated to the Third Section. It was declared admissible on 2 March 1999 and a hearing on the merits was held on 31 August 1999. Judgment   was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: [Note4]   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French),   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [Note5] [2]   Complaint   Mr Khalfaoui complained that he had not had a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, because he did not have access to the Court of Cassation.   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the crucial issue in the case was the applicant’s forfeiture of the right to appeal on points of law after being sentenced on appeal to more than six months’ imprisonment, not suspended, on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody on the day before the hearing in the Court of Cassation after his application for exemption had been refused.   On that point, the Court considered in particular that, regard being had to the fact that the review carried out by the Court of Cassation was final in a criminal case and to what was at stake in that review for persons who might be sentenced to lengthy custodial sentences, forfeiture of the right to appeal was a particularly severe penalty in the light of the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1.   Further, respect for the presumption of innocence, taken together with the suspensive effect of an appeal on points of law made it wrong to oblige a defendant left at liberty to surrender to custody, for however short a period of incarceration. Lastly, the possibility of requesting an exemption from the obligation to surrender to custody was not, in the Court’s opinion a factor which made forfeiture less disproportionate. In conclusion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the applicant had suffered an excessive restriction of his right of access to a court and accordingly of his right to a fair trial.   Judge Loucaides expressed a dissenting opinion and this is annexed to the judgment.   * * *   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ).   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]     T his judgment is not final. 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. [Note1]   Save in t:\gen\press\Court\eng\Judgments\ and give case name (ex: Buscarini Eng). [Note2]   Note that the “click here” appears on the left side but what you type will show up on the right side. [Note3]   Remember to add the Article heading (ex: Article 6 (right to a fair trial)). [Note4]   For applications after 1 November 1998. [Note5]   Reported speech is, in principle, to be used.