CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Marcello Viola v. Italy - 45106/04 Judgment 5.10.2006 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Participation of defendant in hearings by video link: no violation   Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Legal classification of similar charges in two successive sets of proceedings against the applicant based on separate facts: no violation   Facts : The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for serious Mafia-related offences. At the appeal stage, he was not brought to the hearing room from the prison to attend the hearings, as he was subject at the time to a restricted prison regime limiting his contacts with the outside world. Instead, he followed the hearings by means of an audiovisual link to the hearing room, in accordance with the relevant legislation. Law : Article 6 – The applicant’s participation in the hearings by video link had pursued legitimate aims under the Convention, namely the protection of public order, the prevention of crime, protection of the rights to life, freedom and safety of witnesses and victims of offences, and compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement in judicial proceedings. The arrangements for the conduct of the appeal hearings had respected the rights of the defence in the instant case. The applicant had been linked to the hearing room by videoconference, allowing him to see the persons present and hear what was being said. He had been seen and heard by the other parties, the judge and the witnesses. He had been able to make statements to the court and his right to communicate with his lawyer out of earshot of others had not been violated. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 – The applicant had been tried in two successive sets of proceedings for illegal possession of weapons. However, while the legal classification of the charges against him had been similar in the two sets of proceedings, the offences in question had related to two quite distinct periods. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). For further details see Press Release no. 561   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes