CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 février 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA6EC609D { margin-left:12.58pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.42pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     92   13.2.2001     Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KROMBACH v. FRANCE     The European Court of Human Rights today notified in writing the judgment [1] in the case of Krombach v. France. It dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection and held that:   there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken together with Article 6 § 3(c) ; there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention; the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; the respondent State was to pay the applicant 100,000 French francs (FRF) for costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dieter Krombach, a German national, was born in 1935 and lives at Lindau (Germany).   The case concerns the defendant’s conviction in France in his absence and his sentencing to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of his stepdaughter, a French national, who died at the applicant’s home in Germany in July 1982. He was also ordered to pay FRF 350,000 to the victim’s father, a civil party in the French proceedings.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29   November 1995 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible by the Court (Third Section) on 29 February 2000 and a hearing was held on 30 May 2000.     Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he was denied legal representation at his trial before the assize court, which convicted him in his absence on 9 March 1995, under Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (b) of the Convention. He further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that, owing to his conviction in his absence, he had been denied a right of appeal on points of law by virtue of Article 636 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objections   The Government had maintained that the judgment delivered on 9 March 1995 after the applicant had been tried in his absence was not final and that the applicant could have obtained a retrial by surrendering to the authorities. A retrial was automatic and set aside the conviction if the applicant was arrested or surrendered to custody before the time-limit for the enforcement of the sentence became statute-barred. The Court considered, however, that contrary to what the Government had maintained, a retrial after conviction of the applicant in his absence could not be equated to a remedy which he was required to exhaust for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention.   Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3(c)   After noting that under French law the prohibition on any defence representation at the hearing before the Assize Court was, in view of the wording of Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an absolute one, the Court considered that penalising the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing by imposing a prohibition of that nature appeared manifestly disproportionate. Although not absolute, the right of every accused to be effectively represented by a lawyer was one of the fundamental elements of a fair hearing and the accused did not forfeit that entitlement merely by failing to attend the hearing. While the legislature had to be able to discourage unjustified absences, it could not penalise an absent accused by denying his right to legal assistance.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 7   Article 636 of the Code of Criminal Procedure laid down that an accused who had been tried in his absence had no right of appeal to the Court of Cassation. The Court held that the fact that it was impossible for the applicant to appeal to the Court of Cassation against the judgment delivered by the assize court sitting as a court of first and last instance had deprived him of the right to have his conviction examined by a higher court and, in particular, of any possibility of his securing a review by the Court of Cassation of the lawfulness of the assize court’s refusal to allow the defence lawyers to make submissions.   Article 41   The Court held that the applicant had not established a causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage and the violations that had been found and, therefore, did not make any award for pecuniary damage. The Court considered the non-pecuniary damage to have been sufficiently remedied by the findings of a violation contained in the judgment. It allowed the applicant’s claims in part for the costs of the domestic proceedings and the costs incurred for his representation before the Convention institutions, awarding him FRF   100,000.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.     [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.