JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BERNHARDT, PEKKANEN, BAKA AND WILDHABER

In the present case, when the Court of Appeal gave its judgment on 15 January 1986 , only the operative part of the judgment was orally pronounced, in the presence of the applicant. Two days later, Mr Melin lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment; on 27 May 1986 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. Between the first and the last of these dates, Mr Melin was neither officially informed of the reasons of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, nor did he receive any information concerning the proceedings and the date of the hearing before the Court of Cassation and the observations submitted to it by the civil party. Mr Melin also asserts that he expressly asked the registry of the Court of Appeal to send him a copy of the judgment of 15 January 1986 , and the Government cannot exclude the possibility that he did in fact make this request.

In criminal matters, the State must ensure that the accused is officially informed of the essential and decisive steps and elements also in cassation procedures, and it cannot put the burden in this respect entirely on the accused or convicted person. In our view, Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention has been violated.

[*]  The case is numbered 16/1992/361/435.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 261-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.