Late notification of hearing date: applicant was unable to reply to opinion of advocate-general at Court of Cassation
Αn important decision on the right of the
arrested or detained person to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention
has issued on 22.10.2019 the European Court of Human Rights. According to
Article 5(4) οf the European Convention of Human Rights, “everyone who is
deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take
proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily
by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful”. Systematically
the above provision is subject to the more general right to liberty and
security (Article 5)
In ECHR’s Chamber judgment in the case of
Venet v. Belgium (application no. 27703/16) the Court held, unanimously, that
there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The case concerned proceedings in which the Applicant unsuccessfully
challenged his pre-trial detention. He complained that he had been unable to
attend the Court of Cassation’s hearing on his appeal against his pre-trial
detention or to respond to the submissions of the advocate-general, as he had
not been given sufficient advance notice.
The Court found in particular that the
Applicant and his lawyer had not been informed within a reasonable time about
the scheduling of the hearing before the Court of Cassation. They had thus been
unable to listen to or reply to the advocate-general’s oral submissions.
The Court noted that in Belgium the
advocate-general at the Court of Cassation was not a party to the proceedings.
His main task was to assist the Court of Cassation and to ensure the
consistency of its case-law. However, where his opinion was intended to advise
and influence the Court of Cassation, the adversarial principle had to be
respected and this meant that the parties had the right to be informed of and
to discuss any document or observation presented to the court for the purpose
of influencing its decision, even if it came from an independent legal officer,
in this case the advocate-general at the Belgian Court of Cassation.
In the present case, on account of his
absence from the Court of Cassation’s hearing, the Applicant had not been made
aware of the oral submissions of the advocate-general at the Court of
Cassation. The question arising was thus whether it could be considered that the
Applicant or his counsel had been informed within a reasonable time of the
scheduling of the Court of Cassation’s hearing of 10 November 2015.
The right to adversarial proceedings
necessarily entitled the detainee and his lawyer to be notified of the hearing
within a reasonable time, without which the right would be devoid of substance.
The parties were in agreement that a fax indicating the date and time of the
hearing had been sent by the registry of the Court of Cassation to Saint-Gilles
Prison on Friday 6 November. The prison staff did not acknowledge receipt of
the fax until Monday 9 November, the day before the hearing, then forwarding it
to the Applicant at a time that was not established.
The Government had not disputed the
applicant’s allegation that his lawyer had only been notified of the hearing
after it had taken place, on 10 November. Belgian law provided that a detainee
and his lawyer had the right to attend a hearing of the Court of Cassation.
However, the law did not provide for any deadline by which the parties had to be
notified of the hearing time in cases heard urgently by the Court of Cassation.
Nevertheless, the notice stated that the Applicant had to indicate at least 48
hours before the hearing whether he intended to be present. Even though it had
not been established precisely at what time the Applicant had received the
notification during the day of 9 November, it had been impossible for him, in
any event, to express his intention by the deadline given in the notice. As to
his lawyer, it had not been shown that the Applicant could still have informed
him before the hearing began.
Consequently, the Court took the view that the
detainee and his lawyer had not been
informed within a reasonable time about the scheduling of the hearing before
the Court of Cassation. They had thus been unable to listen to or reply to the
advocate-general’s oral submissions. Accordingly there had been a violation of
Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
Finally, ECHR held that the finding of a
violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage
sustained.
Nice
ReplyDelete