CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 septembre 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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; 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. September 1992 Pham Hoang v. France - 13191/87 Judgment 25.9.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Conviction on appeal for a customs offence and presumptions created by the Customs Code: no violation Article 6-3-c Free legal assistance Refusal of official assignment of counsel for appeal on points of law: 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 2 A.   The government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Court had jurisdiction to entertain it, notwithstanding that Commission had maintained the contrary. Appeal on points of law: had been rendered ineffective by refusal of an official assignment of counsel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits Applicant not deprived of all means of defending himself: he could have tried to demonstrate that he had acted from necessity or as a result of unavoidable mistake - Court of Appeal had taken account of a cumulation of facts and had duly weighed the evidence before it, assessed it carefully and based its finding of guilt on it - manner in which it had applied the presumptions created in several provisions of Customs Code had not contravened the principles of a fair trial and of presumption of innocence. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE   6   §   3   (C) Refusal of official assignment of counsel in Court of Cassation: had apparently occurred during a transitional period, legislation having subsequently extended the authority of the Legal Aid Office at Court of Cassation to cover criminal proceedings - proceedings, however, clearly fraught with consequences for applicant, who had been acquitted at first instance but convicted on appeal - in addition, and above all, Mr   Pham   Hoang had intended to challenge in Court of Cassation the compatibility of several provisions of Customs Code with Article   6   §§   1 and 2 of the Convention, but did not have the legal training essential to enable him to present and develop the appropriate arguments on such complex issues himself - the interests of justice therefore required a lawyer to be officially assigned to the case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE   50 Claims relating to proceedings in Court of Appeal: did not fall to be considered. Claims in respect of refusal of an official assignment of counsel in the Court of Cassation: (a)   pecuniary damage: rejected, as Court could not speculate as to outcome of appeal if legal assistance had been granted; (b)   non–pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated by finding of a violation; (c)   costs and expenses incurred in proceedings before Convention institutions: reimbursement assessed on equitable basis.   © 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