PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 25 January 1996 and by the French Government (“the Government“) on 6 February 1996, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in an application (no. 22209/93) against the French Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a French national, Mr Frédéric Foucher, on 16 April 1993. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government’s application referred to Article 48 (art. 48). The object of the request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-3+6-1).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr L.-E. Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 8 February 1996, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal, drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr N. Valticos, Mr I. Foighel, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr L. Wildhaber, Mr D. Gotchev, Mr K. Jungwiert and Mr U. Lohmus (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43). Subsequently Mr R. Pekkanen, substitute judge, replaced Mr Wildhaber, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rules 22 paras. 1 and 2 and 24 para. 1).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the applicant’s lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the applicant’s memorial on 24 July and the Government’s memorial on 31 July 1996. On 8 August 1996 the Commission produced the file on the proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President’s instructions.

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 25 November 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr J.-F. Dobelle, Deputy Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent, Mrs C. Marchi-Uhel, magistrat, on secondment to the Legal Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mrs N. Berthélémy-Dupuy, magistrat, on secondment to the Human Rights Office, European and International Affairs Department, Ministry of Justice, Mr F. Fèvre, magistrat, on secondment to the Department of Criminal Affairs and Pardons, Ministry of Justice, Mr D. Douveneau, Legal Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Counsel; (b) for the Commission Mr I. Békés Delegate; (c) for the applicant Mr P. Masure, avocat at the Caen Court of Appeal, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Békés, Mr Masure and Mr Dobelle.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. Circumstances of the case

Mr Frédéric Foucher, a French national who was born in 1972, lives in Argentan in the Orne département.

A. The proceedings in the Argentan Police Court

On 24 July 1991 the applicant and his father were summoned to appear before the Argentan Police Court under the direct committal procedure (Article 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - see paragraph 16 below). They were charged with having used insulting and threatening words and behaviour towards public-service employees - two national game and wildlife wardens - on 13 February 1991 in Fontenai-sur-Orne. This offence is classified as a fifth-class minor offence under Article R. 40-2 of the Criminal Code, punishable by a term of imprisonment of between ten days and a month and by a fine of between 2,500 and 5,000 French francs (FRF), or by one of these penalties only.

The applicant decided to conduct his own case and his mother went to the police court registry on 25 July 1991 to consult the case file and procure copies of the documents it contained. In a note that same day the Argentan public prosecutor stated that copies could not be issued to individuals except through a lawyer or an insurance company. On 26 July 1991 the applicant and his father went to the registry for the same purpose. In a second note, dated 26 July, the public prosecutor informed them that copies of official reports could not be issued to individuals.

At the police court hearing on 2 October 1991 the applicant and his father argued that the proceedings against them were unlawful. They relied on a breach of Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6) in that they had been denied access to the criminal file and had been refused copies of the documents from the file.

In a judgment of 2 October 1991 the police court upheld their submissions and set aside the proceedings against the applicant and his father on the ground that the rights of the defence had been infringed. It declared inadmissible applications by the National Field Sports Board and the two game wardens to join the proceedings as civil parties. It gave the following reasons: “... Article 6 (art. 6) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right, among other things, to be informed in detail of the accusation against him, to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, and to defend himself in person. In the instant case the public prosecutor’s office in no way disputed the fact that the defendants were not allowed access to their case file when they requested it prior to the hearing. That the defendants attempted to secure such access is confirmed by two notes of 25 and 26 July 1991, although these documents refer only to the refusal to hand over copies. The defendants should have been allowed access to their case file in order to prepare their defence. The value of such access is sufficiently demonstrated by the use legal representatives make of it. No discrimination adversely affecting the rights of the defence can be justified by the fact that a defendant prefers to conduct his own defence. Furthermore, however detailed the inquiry into the facts carried out at the hearing is, the defendant cannot be deprived of the opportunity to see and actually to familiarise himself with the documents concerning him. It follows that the rights of the defence were infringed during the criminal proceedings against Mr Gérard Foucher and Mr Frédéric Foucher and that the proceedings must accordingly be set aside.“

B. The proceedings in the Caen Court of Appeal

On 30 October 1991 the public prosecutor’s office and the civil parties appealed against this judgment.

On 2 March 1992 a summons was served on the applicant at his home. He did not, however, appear at the hearing in the Caen Court of Appeal on 16 March 1992. According to him, his mother went to the registry of the Court of Appeal to obtain information on how to gain access to the case file, but met with the registrar’s refusal.

In a judgment of 16 March 1992, given after proceedings that were adversarial in the case of the applicant’s father and deemed to have been adversarial in the case of the applicant, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of 2 October 1991 and refused the application for the proceedings to be set aside for having violated the rights of the defence. It ruled as follows: “... Gérard Foucher [the applicant’s father] has pleaded that the proceedings should be set aside as they are in breach of the rights of the defence. He argued that he had not had access to the case file in order to prepare an effective defence and that this constituted a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, although Article [6] (art. 6) of that Convention states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right, among other things, to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and the right to defend himself in person, the Convention does not require that the case file be made available to the applicant himself. Moreover, Gérard Foucher was informed, by means of the summons in due form, of the offences with which he was charged and of the legal provisions relating thereto. Under these circumstances the objection that the proceedings were vitiated fails.“ Relying on the official report drawn up on 13 February 1991 by the two game wardens and on the statements made by another hunter, the Court of Appeal fined the applicant and his father FRF 3,000 each for insulting the game wardens.

C. The proceedings in the Court of Cassation

On 10 April 1992 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of 16 March 1992. In his grounds of appeal, which he drafted himself, he cited Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6). His father did not appeal.

On 15 March 1993 the Court of Cassation (Criminal Division) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the following ground, among others: “In holding that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms did not require that the case file be made available to the defendant himself, and that he had been informed, by means of the summons in due form served on him, of the charges against him and the relevant legal provisions, the Court of Appeal did not breach the provisions of that Convention.“