PROCEDURE

The case originated in three applications (nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97) against the French Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three French nationals, Mr Nouredine Meftah, Mr Alain Adoud and Mr Michel Bosoni (“the applicants”), on 10 July 1996, 28 January 1997 and 19 November 1996 respectively.

The applicants complained in particular that the procedure in the Court of Cassation was unfair and contravened Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, in that the advocate-general's submissions had not been communicated to them, with the result that they had been unable to reply, and they had not been informed of the date of the hearing or permitted to address the Court of Cassation at the hearing.

The applications were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The applications were allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 23 November 1999 Mr Meftah's application was declared partly admissible by a Chamber of that Section, composed of the following judges: Mr W. Fuhrmann, President, Mr J.‑P. Costa, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mr K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Mr K. Traja and Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, and also of Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar. On 12 September 2000, following two partial admissibility decisions on 7 September 1999, the applications of Mr Adoud and Mr Bosoni were joined and declared admissible by a Chamber of that Section composed of the following judges: Mr L. Loucaides, President, Mr Costa, Mr P. Kūris, Mrs Tulkens, Mr Jungwiert, Mrs H.S. Greve and Mr Ugrekhelidze, and also of Mrs Dollé, Section Registrar.

The Court delivered its judgments on 27 February 2001 in Mr Adoud's and Mr Bosoni's case and on 26 April 2001 in the case of Mr Meftah. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. A joint separate opinion of Mr Costa and Mr Jungwiert was annexed to the judgment of 27 February 2001.

The French Government (“the Government”) filed requests – on 15 May 2001 in the case of Mr Adoud and Mr Bosoni and on 19 June 2001 in the case of Mr Meftah – for the cases to be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73. Requests for a referral to the Grand Chamber were also lodged by Mr Meftah on 9 May 2001 and Mr Adoud and Mr Bosoni on 31 May 2001. A panel of the Grand Chamber granted the requests on 5 September 2001.

The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24.

On 18 January 2002 the Grand Chamber ordered the joinder of the applications.

The applicants and the Government each filed a memorial on the merits.

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 February 2002 (Rule 59 § 2). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr R. Abraham, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent, Mr B. Cotte, President of the Criminal Division, Court of Cassation, Mrs M. Dubrocard, Deputy Director, Human Rights Division, Legal Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mrs O. Wingert, magistrat, Human Rights Office, European and International Affairs Department, Ministry of Justice, Counsel; (b) for Mr Adoud and Mr Bosoni Mr Y. Rio, of the Paris Bar, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Rio, Mr Abraham and Mr Cotte, and also their replies to questions put by some of the judges.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1960, 1950 and 1938 and live at Irigny, at Colombes and in Paris respectively.

A. The case of Mr Meftah

The applicant was arrested on 15 April 1992 and charged by an investigating judge at Mâcon tribunal de grande instance with using a vehicle registration document that had been obtained illegally and handling a stolen vehicle. He was remanded in custody from 16 April to 18 May 1992. On 31 March 1994 he was committed to stand trial before the Mâcon Criminal Court.

In a judgment of 21 October 1994 the Mâcon Criminal Court dismissed the applicant's application to have the proceedings set aside as defective and, finding him guilty, imposed a suspended sentence of eight months' imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 French francs (FRF). The applicant appealed.

On 2 February 1995 the Dijon Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Criminal Court in its entirety. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.

By a judgment of 17 January 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.

B. The case of Mr Adoud

On 5 November 1994 the applicant was caught by a speed trap while at the wheel of his vehicle. The gendarmerie reported him for exceeding the speed limit by at least 40 k.p.h., namely by driving at 143 k.p.h. in a 90 k.p.h. speed-limit zone.

On 14 March 1995 the Melle Police Court found him guilty of the offence, and imposed a fine of FRF 1,500 and banned him from driving for twenty-one days.

On 15 December 1995 the Poitiers Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, and increased the fine to FRF 3,000 and the ban to three months.

By a judgment of 6 August 1996 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.

C. The case of Mr Bosoni

On 11 November 1994 the police reported the applicant for two offences of failing to stop at a red traffic light. He was summoned to appear at the Paris Police Court for a hearing on 8 March 1995.

On 12 April 1995 the Paris Police Court found the applicant guilty of the offences. It imposed two fines of FRF 1,800 each and banned him from driving for one month.

On 27 October 1995 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Police Court in its entirety. On 2 November 1995 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. He sought communication of the advocate-general's written submissions in order to be able to reply to them, but to no avail.

By a judgment of 10 July 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.