CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 décembre 2001

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 37 December 2001 R.D. v. Poland - 29692/96 and 34612/97 Judgment 18.12.2001 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal to appoint legal aid lawyer for cassation appeal: violation Facts : The applicant, who had been represented by court-appointed lawyers at his trial and appeal and had been exempted from payment of court fees and representation costs, lodged a notice of cassation appeal with the Court of Appeal. He also requested the court to appoint a lawyer, representation being obligatory in cassation proceedings. However, the Court of Appeal refused, considering that the applicant had not shown that he could not afford to pay for his own lawyer. The decision was served on the applicant eight working days before expiry of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The Court of Appeal had exempted the applicant from paying the costs of representation for his initial appeal, implying that it had sufficient basis for considering that it would constitute a disproportionate burden to impose those costs on the applicant. The same court then refused further legal assistance for a cassation appeal, yet it did not appear that the applicant’s financial situation had improved and it did not emerge from the court’s decision on what concrete circumstances it had based its opinion. Consequently, there were reasonable grounds for considering that the applicant did not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance. Since representation is compulsory, access to the cassation court was available only through a lawyer. It was therefore incumbent on the Court of Appeal to handle the applicant’s request in a way that would enable him to prepare his cassation appeal properly. In fact, not only did the court refuse the request but the lack of sufficient time which it gave the applicant to find a lawyer after receiving the decision did not provide him with a reasonable opportunity of having his case brought to the cassation court in a concrete and effective way. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant PLN 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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