Information Note on the Court’s case-law 26

January 2001

Vaudelle v. France - 35683/97

Judgment 30.1.2001 [Section III]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Conviction in absentia of accused, placed under supervisory guardianship, without notification to the guardian and without any legal representation at the hearing: violation

Facts : In March 1995 the applicant was placed under supervisory g uardianship following a judgment in which the guardianship judge had found that, on account of the deterioration of his mental faculties, he had to be represented and assisted in his civil transactions. His son was appointed as his guardian. A month earlie r, a complaint had been lodged against him for indecent assaults on minors. He failed to respond to two summonses issued at the prosecution’s request, requiring him to undergo a psychiatric examination. Neither did he attend the hearing fixed by the tribun al de grande instance, despite having acknowledged receipt of the summons addressed to him personally. He was not represented at the hearing. The court sentenced him to prison and ordered him to pay damages. The judgment was served on him subsequently. His son then declared that he had not been informed of his father’s arrest and conviction until the day when his father began serving his sentence, all the summonses having been sent directly to the first applicant alone. He complained – unsuccessfully – to t he prosecution about the situation, alleging that his father had not been in a position to conduct his own defence and that he (the son) should have been informed of events in the proceedings so that he could organise his father’s defence. The guardianship judge, to whom he had also applied, explained that the supervisory guardianship under which the applicant had been placed was merely a system of assistance which did not entail an obligation to advise the person appointed as guardian of criminal proceedin gs against the person under supervisory guardianship. As relations between the applicant and his son had deteriorated, the son requested the supervisory judge to place his father under judicial guardianship. The applicant’s son was discharged from his duti es as the applicant’s supervisory guardian.

Law : Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (a) – The question which arose here was whether compliance with procedural rights had guaranteed the applicant effective enjoyment of his right to a fair trial and allowed him to exerc ise his rights of defence, the guardianship judge having noted that, on account of the deterioration of his mental faculties, he had to be represented and assisted in his civil transactions and, moreover, that he was incapable of taking part in court proce edings without the assistance of his guardian. In order to determine whether the domestic law provided sufficient procedural guarantees, account had to be taken of the particular circumstances of a case. The offences with which the applicant had been charg ed were particularly serious since he had been accused of indecent assaults on minors. He had been required to undergo a psychiatric examination, but had failed to comply with two summonses. He was liable to a term of imprisonment, which demonstrated the s eriousness of what was at stake in the proceedings. The Government did not dispute that the judicial authorities concerned were aware that the applicant had been placed under supervisory guardianship. The criminal court had, however, convicted the applican t in proceedings deemed to be adversarial, in the absence of the applicant and his representative and without a psychiatrist’s report. Having regard to those factors, the court should have ensured, before giving its ruling, that the trial had been conducte d fairly. It should have taken the special measures which the circumstances required to ensure that the defendant could appear at first instance and that his right to an officially assigned lawyer would be effective. Furthermore, special procedural guarant ees might be necessary to protect those who, on account of a mental disorder, were not entirely capable of acting on their own behalf. In the instant case, since the applicant had been deemed to be incapable of acting alone or on his own behalf in civil tr ansactions, he should have been deemed to be suffering from the same incapacity in the criminal proceedings against him, having regard to the possibility that his right to liberty was at stake in those proceedings. An individual who had been certified inca pable of defending his civil interests and who benefited from assistance to that effect should also have been assisted in defending himself against a criminal charge. The proceedings also had consequences for his property to the extent that he was ordered to pay damages. Since placement under supervisory guardianship was designed to protect the subject’s economic rights, nothing justified not giving the applicant any assistance in the criminal proceedings. With regard to the Government’s submission that the guardian bore liability, it should be noted that at no time was he informed of the criminal proceedings brought against his father. To conclude, in the light (among other things) of the seriousness of the criminal charge, the proper administration of just ice required the national authorities to take additional steps, such as ordering the applicant to submit to a psychiatric examination and summoning him to appear at the hearing personally or through a representative. He could then have understood the proce edings and have been informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and the fairness of the criminal trial would have been ensured.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous)

Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant FRF 50,000 for non- pecuniary damage.

© 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