CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 1992

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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. April 1992 Vidal v. Belgium - 12351/86 Judgment 22.4.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Failure by a court of appeal, hearing a case remitted to it by the Court of Cassation, to call witnesses proposed by the defence: 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.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (D) OF THE CONVENTION Article 6 § 3 (d): as a general rule, left it to the national courts to assess whether it was appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense of that word - did not require the attendance and examination of every defence witness, but had as its essential aim a full "equality of arms" in the matter - in this case, the court hearing the second appeal did not call any witnesses for the prosecution or defence. Concept of "equality of arms" did not, however, exhaust the content of paragraph 3 (d) or paragraph 1 of Article 6 - necessary to ascertain whether the proceedings in issue, considered as a whole, were fair as required by paragraph 1. Applicant acquitted at first instance after several witnesses had been heard, then convicted on appeal solely on the basis of statements by the two defendants (at the first appeal hearing) or the sole remaining defendant (at the second appeal hearing) and the documents in the case-file - court hearing second appeal: gave no reasons for its purely implicit rejection of the submissions inviting it to call four witnesses - not the Court's function to express an opinion on the relevance of the evidence thus offered and rejected or on the applicant's guilt or innocence, but the complete silence of the appeal court was not consistent with the concept of a fair trial, especially as the sentence originally passed had been increased. Conclusion : violation of Article 6 (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Question reserved (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