CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s538F948F { width:16.06pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s957E9964 { width:141.48pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   251 18.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1] (Both judgments are only available in French.)     Destrehem v. France (application no. 56651/00)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 Jean-Noël Destrehem is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in Reims.   Suspected of damaging an unmarked police car with a hammer during a peaceful demonstration in Reims in February 1998, the applicant was prosecuted on a charge of armed assault not occasioning total unfitness for work of more than eight days. The Reims tribunal de grande instance acquitted him after hearing a number of defence witnesses he had asked to be called.   The civil parties and the prosecution appealed. Without summoning the defence witnesses as the applicant had requested, the Court of Appeal gave judgment after studying the documents in the file. Having noted a “fundamental contradiction” in their evidence, it held that none of the witnesses concerned was capable of refuting the evidence of the police officers. Accordingly, in a judgment of 31 March 1999, it found Mr Destrehem guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment, among other penalties, of which five months were suspended. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to summon and examine defence witnesses.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Court of Appeal had essentially grounded the applicant’s conviction on a new interpretation of the evidence given by witnesses it had not itself examined, notwithstanding the applicant’s requests to that effect. It was as if the Court of Appeal, having doubts about the credibility of the defence witnesses, had “challenged” them without hearing their evidence and relied on that impression in order to overturn the first-instance judgment. The applicant had thus been found guilty on the basis of testimony in relation to which his defence rights had been considerably restricted, and this was compounded by the fact that the Court of Appeal itself had described the penalty it imposed as “severe”. The Court accordingly considered that Mr Destrehem had not had a fair trial and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   9,797.95 for costs and expenses.   Somogyi v. Italy (no. 67972/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Tamas Somogyi is a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and is at present a prisoner in Tolmezzo Prison (Italy).   In connection with a prosecution for arms trafficking, a notice of the date of trial was served on the applicant by post. Having failed to appear to stand trial, he was tried in absentia by the Rimini District Court. On 22 June 1999 the District Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment, among other penalties. That judgment having become final, the District Court ordered the applicant’s arrest.   Mr Somogyi was arrested in Austria in August 2000 and extradited to Italy. He maintained that he had never been informed of the prosecution and had never received the notice of the date of trial. He asserted on a number of occasions that the signature on the acknowledgment-of-receipt slip was not his and that because of mistakes in the spelling of the name and address it was likely that the letter had been delivered to someone else. The Italian courts dismissed his appeals and refused to reopen the trial or extend the time allowed for an appeal.   The applicant submitted to the Court that his conviction in absentia had infringed his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.   Having regard to the information submitted to it, the Court was not able to determine whether the applicant had received the notice of the date of trial. It noted that he had repeatedly disputed the authenticity of the signature said to be his, which was the only evidence that he had been informed that he had been charged with an offence. Although that evidence went to the heart of the case, no inquiry had been ordered to check the facts, and despite the applicant’s repeated requests, no handwriting expert had been asked to compare the signatures. Neither the Bologna Court of Appeal nor the Court of Cassation had verified that the applicant had had the opportunity to learn of the charges against him. Accordingly, there had not been a scrupulous attempt to determine beyond reasonable doubt whether the convicted man’s waiver of his right to appear at his trial had been unequivocal. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court reiterated that where it finds that an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his right to participate in his trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be to give him a retrial or reopen the proceedings without undue delay and in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation was sufficient to make good the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr   Somogyi, to whom it awarded EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   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. [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.