CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 septembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 67 August-September 2004 Balliu v. Albania (dec.) - 74727/01 Decision 30.9.2004 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Alleged absence of defence lawyer during part of trial and failure of court to appoint replacement: admissible The applicant, who was charged with murder and participation in an armed gang, was tried on these counts in the District Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. He maintained that his lawyer had not assisted him in several public hearings before the court, including some when the prosecutor had summoned and questioned witnesses against him, as well as when the parties had made their final submissions. The applicant claims to have requested an officially appointed court lawyer, without having received a reply. The Government disputed this version of the facts and maintained that the case had been adjourned on several occasions on account of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer without any reasons. The applicant had then been offered an officially appointed lawyer but had refused this possibility. The proceedings had therefore continued in the presence of the applicant but without any defence lawyer. The applicant’s appeals on the grounds that he had been denied a fair trial in breach of his right to be assisted by a lawyer and to summon the defence witnesses were rejected by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He then lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court, which was declared inadmissible as being “outside its jurisdiction”. Admissible under Article 6: It fell within the Constitutional Court’s competence to examine complaints concerning, inter alia , an alleged breach of an individual’s right to a fair hearing. Thus, the applicant’s constitutional complaint could be considered as a remedy to be exhausted, in which case the final decision had not been the one taken by the Supreme Court, as argued by the Government, and the application was within the six month time limit.   © 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