Information Note on the Court’s case-law 90

October 2006

Hermi v. Italy [GC] - 18114/02

Judgment 18.10.2006 [GC]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Public hearing

Oral hearing

Hearings in trial and appeal courts held in private under summary procedure requested by the defendant: no violation Defendant summoned to the appeal hearing but not appearing regarded by the authorities as having waived his right to appear: no violation

Facts : The proceedings against the applicant for drug trafficking were conducted, at his request, under the summary procedure. He was convicted following adversarial hearings held in private. In the proceedings at first instance, he participated in the hearings with his lawyers. He was given notice of the appeal hearing while in prison following his conviction. He did not attend the appeal hearing and his lawyer objected to the proceedings being continued in his absence.

Law : Article 6 – The applicant, who had been assisted by two lawyers of his own choosing, had been in a position to understand the implications of his request for adoption of the summary procedure, in particular the fact that the hearings before the trial and appeal courts would be held in private. Given that the summary procedure was aimed at speeding up criminal proceedings, the fact that hearings were held in private was not contrary to the Convention.

The applicant had not attended the appeal hearing. However, his presence could not in any way have influenced the characterisation of the offence of which he had been convicted, as the court of appeal had no power to increase his sentence and the hearing had been confined to hearing the arguments of the parties, without any evidence being produced or witnesses examined (in accordance with the summary procedure). While, admittedly, the notice of the appeal hearing had not indicated that the applicant had to make a request in advance in order to be brought to the hearing room, this would have been known to the lawyers chosen by the applicant. The applicant, however, had not complained of a lack of diligence on their part, nor had their shortcomings been manifest. In addition to the fact that the request to attend the appeal hearing had been made at a late stage and by the applicant’s lawyer alone, there had been further indications that the applicant had not wished to attend. The authorities had been entitled to conclude that the applicant had implicitly, but nonetheless unequivocally, waived his right to participate in the appeal hearing.

Conclusion : no violation (twelve votes to five).

© 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