CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2005

.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. 75 May 2005 Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.) - 6569/04 Decision 10.5.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Prime Minister’s statements to media regarding investigation into suspected offences committed by senior judges: inadmissible   The applicants, two judges of the Criminal Court of Appeal, had been suspected , inter alia , of having accepted a sum of money in exchange for reducing a prison sentence in a case before them. During the investigation the Prime Minister called a press conference and issued a press release stating, inter alia , that days before a judgment of the Court of Appeal, it “[had] become known” that contacts had been made on behalf of the accused with the (named) applicants so that the prison term to which the accused had been condemned be reduced by four years in return for money; that judgment had been given as allegedly had been agreed; and that after the judgment had been rendered “it [had] resulted” that money had been paid to the applicants. The applicants were charged before the Court of Magistrates sitting as a Court of Criminal Inquiry but requested that the criminal proceedings be stayed while the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional jurisdiction, would examine their complaint that the press conference and the surrounding publicity had prejudiced their rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence. The Court of Criminal Inquiry referred the case to the Civil Court in so far as it concerned the press conference but rejected the applicants’ allegations regarding the alleged prejudice suffered because of the publicity given to the statements of the Prime Minister. The Civil Court held that the declarations at the press conference could not be considered as statements of guilt; declared that the applicants’ fundamental rights had not been breached; and directed the Court of Criminal Inquiry to continue the criminal proceedings. Following the applicants’ appeal to the Constitutional Court it revoked the impugned decision and declared inter alia that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent. It further ordered that a copy of its judgment be placed in the records of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants. In his press release the Prime Minister had used the words “it became known” and “it resulted” which had been incompatible with the required caution and a clear declaration that the facts of which the applicants were accused had actually taken place, thus suggesting that the Prime Minister was considering the applicants guilty. This also resulted from some extracts of press articles which showed that the reservations made by the Prime Minister at the end of the press conference did not have much effect on public opinion which was de facto encouraged to believe that the accused had committed a criminal offence. Subsequently the Court of Criminal Inquiry rejected the applicants’ request that the trial be suspended pending a decision from the European Court. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 that their right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal had been violated; that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 had not been respected; and that the violations of Article   6 in their case had not been redressed in an effective manner. Article 6 § 1: According to the information available, the proceedings were still pending at first instance. Whereas it is not impossible that a particular procedural element could be so decisive that the fairness of the proceedings could be determined before they have come to an end, the applicants’ submissions did not disclose any such circumstances: manifestly ill-founded. Article 6 § 2: The Constitutional Court had declared that, by reason of the expressions used by the Prime Minister, the required caution had not been observed and that it had been suggested to the public that the applicants were to be considered guilty. This had led the highest jurisdiction in Malta to find a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence and to order that its judgment be brought to the attention of the tribunal called upon to determine the criminal charges. This measure was aimed at providing redress for the violations found and at ensuring that all the safeguards contained in the Criminal Code were scrupulously applied. The highest court in Malta had thus made clear that the applicants’ guilt or innocence should be established only on the basis of the evidence produced during the trial, thereby seeking to place the applicants, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded. As the national authorities had acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to respect Article 6 § 2 and also had afforded sufficient redress the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34: incompatible ratione personae . Article 13: The applicants had the possibility of introducing a constitutional complaint concerning the alleged violation of their rights to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent. The Constitutional Court had not only found a breach of Article 6 but had ordered measures aimed at providing redress for the violations of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair trial. It had also sought to place the applicants, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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