PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 25 May 1992, within the three- month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 12914/87) against the French Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a French national, Mr Pierre-André Melin, on 21 November 1986. 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 object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken in conjunction with paragraph 3 (b) and (c) thereof (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings. He also sought leave, as a former lawyer, to present his own case (Rule 30 para. 1). The President of the Court granted this request on 22 June 1992.

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. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 29 May 1992, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr A.N. Loizou, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr L. Wildhaber and Mr B. Repik (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Mr S.K. Martens and Mr R. Pekkanen, substitute judges, replaced Mr Repik, whose term of office had come to an end on 1 January 1993 due to the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (Articles 38 and 65 para. 3 of the Convention and Rule 22 para. 1) (art. 38, art. 65-3), and Mr Macdonald, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the French Government (“the Government“), the Delegate of the Commission and the applicant 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 2 November 1992 and the Government’s memorial on 20 November. On 4 January 1993 the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit oral observations. On the same day the applicant lodged his claims under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention.

On 12 January 1993 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 January 1993. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court, replaced Mr Ryssdal, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 21 para. 5, second sub-paragraph). There appeared before the Court:

for the Government Mr B. Gain, Head of the Human Rights Section, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent, Mr P. Titiun, magistrat, on secondment to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr J. Carrère, magistrat, on secondment to the Department of Criminal Affairs and Pardons, Ministry of Justice, Mr D. Caron, magistrat, legal officer at the Court of Cassation, Counsel;

for the Commission Mr J.-C. Soyer, Delegate;

the applicant. The Court heard addresses by Mr Gain for the Government, by Mr Soyer for the Commission and by the applicant.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

Mr Pierre-André Melin, a French national, lives off private means and resides at Courbevoie (Hauts-de-Seine). He formerly practised as a lawyer.

On 6 May 1985 the Nanterre Criminal Court convicted him of fraud and sentenced him to a suspended term of sixteen months’ imprisonment, combined with an order (mise à l’épreuve) requiring him, inter alia, to compensate the victim for the damage which he had sustained.

The applicant appealed immediately to the Versailles Court of Appeal, which, giving judgment on 15 January 1986 in Mr Melin’s presence, upheld the lower court’s guilty verdict. On the other hand, it deferred pronouncement of sentence until 25 June 1986 as the accused had undertaken to reimburse the victim within six months if the court were to find him guilty. This aspect of the proceedings is not in issue. The typed text of the judgment was filed with the registry on the same day as its delivery.

Two days later Mr Melin lodged an appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s judgment with the latter’s registry (Article 576 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). He stated that he reserved the right “to put forward any other relevant ground once he had received the certified copy of the decision in question“. According to the applicant, he requested a copy of the judgment on the same occasion. A registry official allegedly took down his address and the case references, so as to be able to send him one in return for a forty franc fiscal stamp. The Government maintain that there were two possibilities: either the applicant had not requested a copy and could not therefore be surprised at not receiving one; or he had in fact asked for one, in which case a copy had undoubtedly been sent to him.

On 14 February 1986 the appeal file reached the registry of the Court of Cassation. Three and a half months later, on 27 May, the Criminal Division dismissed the appeal because no grounds had been put forward and because the contested judgment did not disclose any procedural defect. This decision was notified to Mr Melin on 18 June and recorded that the party seeking damages had submitted a memorial.

In a letter of 23 June to the President of the Criminal Division, the applicant explained that he had been unable to submit a memorial because he had not had available to him the text of the judgment of 15 January 1986; in addition he complained that the judge-rapporteur had failed to communicate to him a time-limit for the submission of a memorial. On 4 July the Chief Registrar replied to him that, as the judgment of the Court of Cassation was final, he could not appeal against it.

Throughout these various proceedings Mr Melin had conducted his own defence, though he had been assisted by a lawyer at first instance.