CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBEEF6FF3 { width:53.42pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     480   7.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which are final. [1]   Duriez-Costes v. France (application no. 50638/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Dieudonné Duriez-Costes is a French national who was born in 1943 and lives in Paris.   In 1995, as he was leaving a bar, the applicant was arrested in his car by the police. Following his refusal to undergo a breath test, he was taken to the police station, where a blood-alcohol test gave a positive result.      On 23 November 1995 the Blois Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of drunken driving and disqualified him from driving for two months. He appealed against that decision but without success, and subsequently appealed on points of law. The Court of Cassation remitted the case to the Poitiers Court of Appeal, which upheld the applicant’s conviction. He again appealed on points of law, but the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on 5 May 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair. He submitted that he had not been summoned to the hearing in the Court of Cassation and had therefore been unable to give evidence. He also complained that he had not received a copy of the Advocate-General’s submissions.   As to whether the applicant should have been summoned to the hearing, the Court noted that his appeals on points of law had been lodged after his arguments had been examined by the trial and appeal courts. Those courts had held hearings at which the applicant or his lawyer had appeared and presented his case in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. As to the fact that the applicant had been unable to make oral submissions in the Court of Cassation, the Court pointed out that hearings in that court were technical and concerned only points of law. It would be unduly formalistic to interpret the procedural requirements as meaning that applicants should be permitted to make oral representations in the Court of Cassation. The Court also considered that the special nature of proceedings before the Court of Cassation could justify specialist lawyers being reserved a monopoly on making oral representations and that such a reservation did not deny applicants a reasonable opportunity to present their cases in conditions that did not place them at a disadvantage. Consequently, the Court considered that the fact that the applicant had not had the opportunity to plead his case orally, either in person or through a member of the ordinary bar, had not infringed his right to a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6, and held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of the Convention on that account.   With regard to the fact that the applicant had not received a copy of the Advocate-General’s submissions, the Court noted that the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, had been unable to ascertain the tenor of the submissions before the hearing or to reply to them in writing. While it was true that he had not applied for legal aid to enable him to be represented by a specialist lawyer, that did not mean that he had waived the right to adversarial proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Von Bülow v. the United Kingdom (no. 75362/01)                                Violation Article 5 § 4   The applicant, Egon von Bülow, is a United Kingdom national, born in 1946, who is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at HM Prison Erlestoke (United Kingdom).   Mr von Bülow was convicted in 1975 for the murder of a policeman and attempted murder of two other policemen following an incident in the early hours of 6 July 1974 when, on being stopped by the police, he had pulled out a pistol and shot all three officers. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment for the murder and to two concurrent terms of 15 years imprisonment for the attempted murders. After his trial, the trial judge recommended that he serve a tariff (minimum period of detention representing the elements of retribution and deterrence) of 20 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed. The Secretary of State did not set a tariff.   By letter dated 25 July 2000, the applicant was informed that the Secretary of State had decided to set the tariff at 23 years and that, as this period had expired, the tariff was no longer a factor in his continued detention.   By letter dated 27 March 2001, the applicant was informed that the Parole Board had not recommended his release. Though some improvement had been observed, it was noted that reports on his progress agreed that he still had some way to go before a move to open conditions could be contemplated. As his progress in a category C prison had been encouraging however, his next review was set to start on March 2002.   The applicant alleged that he did not have a proper review of the lawfulness of his continued detention, relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights recalled that in its Grand Chamber judgment of 28 May 2002 in the case Stafford v. the United Kingdom (no.46295/99) it found - concerning a mandatory life prisoner sentenced for murder - that, after the expiry of the tariff, continued detention depended on elements of risk and dangerousness that could change with the course of time. Article 5 § 4 therefore required that the applicant should be able periodically to challenge the continuing legality of his detention in an appropriate procedure.   The Court noted that Mr von Bülow’s tariff under his mandatory life sentence had expired in 1998. While the Parole Board reviewed the applicant’s case in 2001, it had not had any power to order his release and could only make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Nor had any oral hearing taken place, with the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses relevant to any allegations that the applicant remained a risk to the public. The United Kingdom Government did not dispute that that the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention was not reviewed by a body with the power to order release or with a procedure containing the necessary judicial safeguards as required by   Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do 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 Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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.