Information Note on the Court’s case-law 64

May 2004

Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 994/03

Decision 25.5.2004 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Conviction partly based on statements by co-accused who made an arrangement with the prosecution: inadmissible

The applicant was charged with participation in a criminal organisation and drug trafficking after Z. declared that he h ad been involved in a shipment of cocaine. Z. subsequently signed an arrangement with the public prosecution services which stipulated that in exchange for further truthful statements on the role of the applicant in drug trafficking, a recommendation for h is partial pardon would be made. On the basis of additional evidence of Z. the Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The applicant filed an appeal and requested that all the documents related to the proceeding s in which Z. had been convicted, as well as those related to the arrangement he had concluded with the prosecution services, be included in his case file. He further requested that tape-recorded conversations between Z. and a public prosecutor be heard in public. The applicant's requests were rejected. The Court of Appeal acknowledged some shortcomings in the proceedings but not of such a nature that the applicant's right to a fair trial had been harmed. It quashed the Regional Court's judgment and convict ed the applicant anew, sentencing him to nine years' imprisonment.

Inadmissible under Article 6  § 1 (access to documents): Whilst there is an obligation under this provision for the prosecution authorities to disclose all material evidence against an accu sed, the documents in respect of which the applicant sought access could not, as such, be regarded as material evidence. The applicant had had ample opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the arrangement between Z. and the prosecution services in the cou rse of the appeal proceedings. Thus, the decisions of the Court of Appeal refusing him access to such documents had not deprived him of a fair hearing: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (lawfulness of the arrangement): Although the u se of statements by witnesses in exchange for immunity could raise a question as to the fairness of proceedings, in the instant case both the applicant and domestic courts had been aware of the arrangement and had extensively questioned Z. to test his reli ability and credibility. It could therefore not be said that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of evidence in respect of which he had not been able to exercise his defence rights: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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