Information Note on the Court’s case-law 61

February 2004

D.P. v. France - 53971/00

Judgment 10.2.2004 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Impartial tribunal

Judges dealing with appeal on points of law against conviction after having previously examined an appeal on points of law against the committal for trial: no violation

Facts : Following the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Indictment Division committed him for trial in the Assize Court. The applicant appealed on points of law against that decision. The Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Assize Court sentenced the applicant t o nineteen years’ imprisonment and stripped him of certain rights. The applicant appealed on points of law, but the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. Two of the judges sitting in the Division had taken part in the examinatio n of his previous appeal.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – Two of the judges of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation who had heard the applicant’s appeal against his conviction by the Assize Court had earlier examined his appeal against his committal for tr ial before the same court. In assessing whether his fears as to the Division’s lack of impartiality were objectively justified, the Court had to take into account the specific function and nature of the review undertaken by the Court of Cassation. The judg es of that court were solely empowered to review the lawfulness and the reasoning of decisions by the courts below. The points in issue in the first appeal, against the committal for trial, had concerned the lawfulness of the investigation, whereas those i n the second appeal had concerned the lawfulness of the conviction. Accordingly, the judges in question had never had to assess the merits of the charge against the applicant and had been called upon to examine different points of law in each appeal. Becau se of the difference between the issues before the Criminal Division in the two appeals, there had been no objective ground for fearing that it might be biased or prejudiced in its decision on the second appeal.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

© 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