CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juin 1993

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. June 1993 Melin v. France - 12914/87 Judgment 22.6.1993 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-3-b Adequate facilities Adequate time Article 6-3-c Defence in person Obstacles preventing a convicted person from putting forward arguments in support of his appeal on points of law: no 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.] Applicant's complaints based in particular on failure to communicate in time a copy of Court of Appeal's judgment - European Court did not have to appreciate as such French system of notifying judgments given in criminal proceedings by courts of appeal. Right of every accused to be informed of the grounds for his conviction, to have adequate time and facilities for preparation of his appeal on points of law and to have opposing party's observations communicated to him: rights inherent in the notion of   a fair trial. However, in the very specific circumstances of the case, the applicant, a former lawyer, knew that the legislation in force did not require the authorities to serve on him the judgment of the Court of Appeal - as he had deliberately waived right to be assisted by a lawyer, he was under duty to show diligence himself by adopting one of the following three courses of action: he could have consulted original of the judgment, or, if he had already requested a copy, he could have repeated that request or, finally, he could have made enquiries at Court of Cassation's registry on the progress of the proceedings before it in order to be able to file a memorial in good time - it would have been possible for the applicant to submit such a memorial if he had wanted to - no interference with effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four).   © 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