CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     377   8.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1]   Violations Article 6 § 1 Fontaine and Bertin v. France (applications nos. 38410/97 and 40373/98)   Fairness of proceedings in the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation   Jacques Fontaine and Albert Bertin are French nationals who were born in 1929 and 1932 and live in Stiring-Wendel and Lyons respectively. They were both prosecuted for road-traffic offences and were convicted and fined by the police court. Both applicants appealed on points of law, but their appeals were dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had been unfair. They argued that they had been the victims of an unjustified difference in treatment as a result of the fact that they had not been represented by counsel in the Court of Cassation.   As regards the applicants’ complaint that they had been given less time than an appellant represented by counsel to file full pleadings, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicants had filed their pleadings within the statutory time, without seeking an extension. They had not shown that the time they had been allowed – although it was shorter than the time allowed to appellants represented by a member of the Conseil d’État and Court of Cassation Bar – had been insufficient to enable them to present their grounds of appeal properly. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention on that account.   The applicants further complained that they had not been summoned to the hearing in the Court of Cassation and had not been present at the hearing. In that connection, the Court noted that that before the appeals had been lodged with the Court of Cassation, the parties’ arguments had been examined by the police court, which had full jurisdiction and had held hearings in compliance with Article 6 of the Convention. The Court also pointed out that any legal argument at a hearing before the Court of Cassation would be particularly technical and concern only points of law. It had already held that it would be unduly formalistic to interpret the procedural requirements as meaning that the applicants should have been permitted to make oral representations at a hearing of that kind. In addition, it reiterated that the special nature of proceedings before the Court of Cassation could justify reserving specialist lawyers a monopoly on making oral representations. Consequently, the fact that the applicants had not been given an opportunity to plead their cases orally, either in person or through a member of the ordinary bar, had not infringed their right to a fair hearing. The Court accordingly held by 5 votes to 2 that there had been no violation of the Convention on that account.   As regards the applicants’ complaint that they had not been sent a copy of the advocate-general’s submissions, the Court noted that, since they had not been represented by a specialist lawyer, they had been unable to ascertain the tenor of the submissions before the hearing or to reply to them. While it was true that the applicants had not applied for legal aid to enable them to be represented by a specialist lawyer, that did not mean that they had waived the right to adversarial proceedings. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.   The applicants also complained that, unlike the advocates-general, they had not been sent a copy of the reporting judge’s report. Referring to its case-law, the Court reiterated that, given the importance of the reporting judge’s report, the advocate-general’s role and the consequences of the outcome of the proceedings for the applicants, the imbalance created by the failure to communicate the report to the accused’s lawyer on exactly the same terms was not consistent with the requirements of a fair trial. In the present case, the Court noted that the advocates-general had received a copy of the entire report, whereas the applicants had not even received a copy of the part of the report which was not covered by the principle of the secrecy of deliberations. The Court accordingly held by 6 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of the Convention on that account.   As regards the complaint concerning the presence of the advocates-general at the deliberations, the Court noted that that practice had ended in France in October 2001. Referring to its relevant case-law, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on that account. The Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It also awarded Mr   Fontaine 1,200 euros for costs and expenses. (The judgment is in French only.)   ***   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.