CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 2010

.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. 129 April 2010 Chesne v. France - 29808/06 Judgment 22.4.2010 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Order for continued pre-trial detention based on preconceived idea of defendant’s guilt: violation   Facts – The applicant was placed under investigation for a drugs-related offence committed as a repeat offender and was remanded in custody. He appealed against his pre-trial detention to the investigation division of the Court of Appeal, made up of three judges. In April 2003 the investigation division ruled that a court supervision measure would be ineffective and upheld the detention order. While acknowledging that the investigation revealed some inconsistencies at that stage, the judges found that the applicant had “acted very much as a professional drug trafficker, making a substantial profit in the process” and was considered as “one of the main traffickers”. In June 2004 the criminal court found the applicant guilty of unauthorised purchase of drugs as a repeat offender and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. After lodging an appeal the applicant’s lawyers learned that the bench of the court of appeal that would hear the case would include a judge who had been on the bench which had adopted the above-mentioned judgment in April 2003 and another judge who in July 2003 had ruled on the continuing pre-trial detention of the applicant’s girlfriend and had described her as the “live-in partner of one of the main traffickers, who took over from him when he was absent”. The lawyers requested the withdrawal of the judges concerned, but their request was refused. In December 2004 the Criminal Appeals Division upheld the first-instance judgment but reduced the sentence to ten years’ imprisonment. In November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. Law – Article 6 § 1: The reasons given by the investigation division of the Court of Appeal in the impugned judgments of April and July 2003 amounted to a preconceived idea of the applicant’s guilt. While the investigation division could not be criticised for taking note of the fact, emphasised in the investigation file, that the only trafficking admitted by the applicant appeared to have been “on a very significant scale”, by referring in clear and unequivocal terms to the precise role of the applicant, his place in the criminal network and the extent of his implication in the trafficking, the judges had nevertheless gone beyond simply describing a “state of suspicion” in his regard. By adopting such reasoning, and in particular by drawing firm conclusions from the apparent inconsistencies referred to in the judgment of April 2003 between the applicant’s statements and certain items of physical evidence gathered during the investigation, the investigation division had not confined itself to a summary assessment of the acts of which the applicant stood accused in order to justify the need for his continuing detention, but instead had commented on the existence of evidence that the applicant was guilty. Accordingly, the Court was unable to conclude that the impugned decisions did not contain any reasons or assessment pertaining to the applicant’s guilt. The objective impartiality of the two judges of the Criminal Appeals Division who had been members of the investigation division of the Court of Appeal which rendered the impugned judgments could therefore appear to be open to doubt. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.   © 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