CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juin 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .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. June 1998 Twalib v. Greece - 24294/94 Judgment 9.6.1998 Article 6 Article 6-3-b Adequate facilities Adequate time Lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence during criminal trial: no violation   Article 6-3-c Free legal assistance Absence of legal aid in cassation proceedings: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Examination of complaints confined to Article 6 § 1 taken together with paragraph 3 (b) and (c) as applicant did not pursue other complaints before Court. II.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Government’s arguments concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies closely linked to applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 3 (c). Conclusion : objection joined to merits (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (b) OF THE CONVENTION Applicant assigned lawyer representing co-accused – lawyer afforded very limited time to consult case file and prepare defence despite seriousness of offence and complexity of case – in view of applicant’s submission that there was conflict of interest between him and co-accused, brevity of period of preparation can hardly be defended on basis of argument that lawyer familiar with case – therefore serious shortcomings in fairness of trial proceedings. However, applicant represented by different lawyer before Court of Appeal challenged his conviction and sentence – Court of Appeal empowered to examine questions of fact and law and to quash impugned judgment – applicant’s lawyer did not contend on appeal that conviction was unsafe and that retrial should be ordered – no clear indication that appellate court could assume that there had been defect in first-instance proceedings without being alerted to matter. Court of Appeal reached conclusion after hearing at which applicant and his counsel were present – applicant had opportunity to raise alleged deficiency at appeal hearing – nothing to suggest that fairness of appeal proceedings could be called into question. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three).   IV.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION Reiteration of case-law on right to fair trial. Court satisfied on facts that applicant was indigent and required legal aid in connection with cassation proceedings – furthermore, interests of justice required he be granted legal aid in view of seriousness of offence and severity of sentence as well as complexity of cassation procedure – applicant of foreign origin and unfamiliar with Greek language and legal system – Greek law however made no provision for grant of legal aid in cassation proceedings.   Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed; violation (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: Claim dismissed – no causal link between violation and damage claimed (unanimously). B.   Non-pecuniary damage: Compensation awarded on equitable basis (unanimously). C.   Costs and expenses: Applicant’s claim allowed in part (unanimously). Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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