Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19820305-896680
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 15:00:52+00:00

Document:
GODDI c. ITALIE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche GODDI c. ITALIE
Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Violation de P1-2 ; Non-violation de l'art. 3 ; Satisfaction équitable réservéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8966/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1982-03-05;8966.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : GODDIDéfendeurs : ITALIETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8966/8 0 Francesco GODDI v/ITAL Y Francesco GODDI c/ITALI E DECISION of 5 March 1982 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 5 mars 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 6, paragraph 3(c) of the Convention : Applicant detained, convicted on appeal in another town in his absence and in the absence of the lawyer of his choice, but in the presence of a lawyer offiÃ©ially assigned to him on the day of the hearing . Has he been able to exercise the right to defend himself? (Complaint declared admissible) .
Article 6, paragraphe 3 Iltt . c), de la Convention : RequÃ©rant dÃ©tenu, condamnÃ© en appel dans une autre ville en son absence et en l'absence de l'avocat qu'il avait choisi, mais en prÃ©sence d'un avocat commis d'office le jour de l'audience . A-t-il pu exercer le droit de se dÃ©fendre? (RequÃªte dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable) .
(English : see p . 162)
Les faits, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Francesco Goddi, de nationalitÃ© italienne, est nÃ© le S aoÃ¹t 1951 Ã Orune (Italie) . Pour la procÃ©dure devant la Commission il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par MaÃ®tre Marcantonio Bezicheri, avocat au barteau de Bologne . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© inculpÃ© des infractions suivantes : - menace armÃ©e (art . 612 du Code pÃ©nal italien), dÃ©tention et po rt abusif d'armes et de munitions (art . 697 du CP), pour avoir, le 2 mai 1975, menacÃ© S .M . d'une arme Ã feu Ã la suite d'une dispute concernant la gestion d'un cheptel ;
- en concou rs avec M .F ., dÃ©tention et po rt abusif d'armes de guerre, dommages aux biens ( art . 635 du CP), explosion dangereuse dans un lieu habitÃ© (art . 703 du CP), pour avoir le 17 mai 1975 fait exploser deux grenades provenant de l'armÃ©e, devant l'habitation de S .M . Le 16 juin 1975, le t ri bunal de Forli, statuant en p remiÃ¨ re instance, condamna le requÃ©rant Ã un an et six mois de rÃ©clusion et Ã 300 .000 lires d'amende quant aux inculpations relatives aux faits du 2 mai 1975 et l'acquitta pour insuffisance de p re uves en ce qui concerne celles ayant trait aux faits du 17 mai 1975 . Cette dÃ©cision fit l'objet d'un appel du procureur de la RÃ©publique, du procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral et des accusÃ©s . - le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral fit valoir que la dÃ©cision du t ribunal, dans la mesure oÃ¹ elle faisait application en l'espÃ¨ce du p rincipe de la continuitÃ© des dÃ©lits pour les faits retenus contre l'accusÃ©, Ã©tait erronÃ©e puisque les infractions relatives Ã ces faits Ã©taient de natu re diffÃ©re nte : les deux premiÃ¨res sont des dÃ©lits alors que la troisiÃ¨me est une contravention . - Le procureur de la RÃ©pub li que s'Ã©leva cont re la dÃ©cision d'acquittement pour insuffisance de preuve concernant les Ã©vÃ©nements du 17 mai . - Le requÃ©rant demanda que lui soit reconnu le bÃ©nÃ©fice des circonstances attÃ©nuantes . La pre miÃ¨re audience devant la cour d'appel de Bologne fut fi xÃ©e au 30 novemb re 1976 . L'avocat qui avait jusqu'Ã ce moment-lÃ assurÃ© la dÃ©fense du requÃ©rant et rÃ©digÃ© les motifs d'appel, MaÃ®tre Monteleone, ne se prÃ©senta pas Ã l'audience . La cour d'appel nomma donc au requÃ©rant un avocat d'o ff ice, Maitre G . Maio . L'examen de l'affaire fut ensuite re portÃ© au 9 juillet 1977 . Lors de cette seconde audience le requÃ©rant dÃ©signa comme dÃ©fenseur de confiance Mait re Bezicheri . Toutefois, l'affai re ne put Ãªtre traitÃ©e au cours de ce tt e audience car la citation Ã comparaitre n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ©e au coinculpÃ© du requÃ©rant, F .M . Une nouvelle audience fut fixÃ©e au 3 dÃ©cembre suivant . Le procÃ¨s se dÃ©roula toutefois, Ã cette date, en l'absence du requÃ©rant et de son avocat de confiance, Maitre Beziche ri . Le requÃ©rant avait en effet Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© le 29 octobre 1977 et placÃ© en dÃ©tention Ã O rv ieto pour d'autres mo tifs, ce que la cour ignorait . Il re sso rt toutefois des piÃ¨ces versÃ©es au dossier que le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de Bologne avait demandÃ© dÃ¨s le 23 septembre 1977 au procureur de la RÃ©publique d'Orvieto de notifier Ã l'accusÃ© la date de l'audience et de p re ndre le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, les dispositions nÃ©cessaires pour le transfe rt de l'accusÃ© Ã Boloene . Le reauÃ©rant affirme d'autre oa rt avoir lui-mÃªme informÃ© le s
autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires compÃ©tentes de l'existence du procÃ¨s et de la date de l'audience, mais aucune disposition n'aurait Ã©tÃ© prise pour lui permettre de comparaÃ®tre Ã l'audience . Celle-ci eut lieu en l'absence de l'accusÃ©, qui fut dÃ©clarÃ© contumace aux termes de l'article 498 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Pour sa part, l'avocat nommÃ© par le requÃ©rant lors de la seconde audience du procÃ¨s, MaÃ®tre Bezicheri, ne reÃ§ut pas notification de la citation Ã comparaitre et ne comparut pas non plus. La citation avait en effet Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ©e Ã l'ancien avocat choisi comme dÃ©fenseur par le requÃ©rant, Maitre Monteleone . Lors de l'audience la cour nomma sÃ©ance tenante au requÃ©rant un dÃ©fenseur d'office . Dans ses conclusions, celui-ci se reporta purement et simplement aux motifs d'appel . La cour d'appel de Bologne condamna le requÃ©rant Ã 4 ans de rÃ©clusion et 500 000 lires d'amende pour l'ensemble des dÃ©lits, Ã â¢3 mois d'arrÃªt et Ã 300001ires d'amende pour les contraventions . Elle estima par ailleurs que les circonstances attÃ©nuantes Ã©taient compensÃ©es par les circonstances aggravantes . Le requÃ©rant forma un pourvoi en cassation contre cette dÃ©cision . Il fit valoir que la dÃ©cision devait Ãªtre cassÃ©e pour trois motifs : - omission de la communication de la date de l'audience Ã l'avocat de la dÃ©fense, ce qui aux termes des articles 410 et 134 combinÃ©s du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale italien, devait entraÃ®ner la nullitÃ© du procÃ¨s ; - illÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel dÃ©clarant le requÃ©rant contumace, puisque ce dernier Ã©tait dÃ©tenu et n'avait pu se prÃ©senter Ã ses juges ; - dÃ©faut de motifs . La Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi par arrÃªt du 8 novembre 1979, qui fut dÃ©posÃ© au greffe de la Cour le 20 fÃ©vrier 1980 . La Cour de cassation jugea que la notification de la fixation de l'audience au premier avocat nommÃ© par le requÃ©rant devait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme suffisante sous l'angle de l'article 410 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . En effet, selon elle, le fait pour un accusÃ© de dÃ©signer un autre avocat de confiance n'implique pas en soi la rÃ©vocation du mandat donnÃ© au premier . En l'absence de toute dÃ©claration expresse du requÃ©rant Ã cet Ã©gard, la cour d'appel avait pu valablement considÃ©rer que la notification effectuÃ©e au premier dÃ©fenseur satisfaisait aux exigences de l'article 410 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Sur la question de l'illÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©claration de contumace du requÃ©rant, la Cour de cassation releva que l'empÃªchement invoquÃ© par le requÃ©rant, qui aurait entachÃ© d'illÃ©galitÃ© la dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel de le dÃ©clarer contumace, Ã©tait inconnu des magistrats . On ne pouvait donc faire grief aux juges d'avoir conclu Ã la contumace du requÃ©rant . - 160 -
Le troisiÃ¨me motif fut rejetÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ© . GRIEFS Le requÃ©rant se plaint que sa cause n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã©quitablement, parce qÃ» J n'aurait pu Ãªtre assistÃ© d'un dÃ©fenseur de son choix et aurait Ã©tÃ© Ã tort dÃ©clarÃ© contumace . Il allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 6, paragraphes 1 et 6, paragraphe 3 (c) de la Convention .
EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint de s'Ãªtre vu dÃ©nier le droit de se dÃ©fendre d'une accusation pÃ©nale devant la cour d'appel de Bologne, puisque ni lui-mÃªme ni son avocat de confiance n'ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sents Ã l'audience du 3 dÃ©cembre 1977, lors de laquelle il fut condamnÃ© par contumace Ã des peines de prison et d'amende . Il explique que lui-mÃªme se trouvait en prison Ã Orvieto et que la citation Ã comparaÃ®tre n'a pas Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ©e Ã son avocat de confiance . Le Gouvernement rÃ©pond que la citation Ã comparaitre avait Ã©tÃ© rÃ©gu eo-liÃ¨remntfÃ©Ã uavcdeonfiprÃ©metdsignparl requÃ©rant et dont le mandat demeurait valable . Il souligne en outre qu'un avocat d'office fut nommÃ© Ã l'audience mÃªme pour dÃ©fendre la cause du requÃ©rant . La Commission a examinÃ© la prÃ©sente requÃªte sous l'angle de l'article 6, paragraphe 3(c) de la Convention, qui stipule :
. Tout accusÃ© a droit notamment Ã c) se dÃ©fendre lui-mÃªme ou avoir l'assistance d'un dÃ©fenseur de son choix et, s'il n'a pas les moyens de rÃ©munÃ©rer un dÃ©fenseur, pouvoir Ãªtre assistÃ© gratuitement par un avocat d'office, lorsque les intÃ©rÃªts de la justice l'exigent ;
La Commission estime que cette requÃªte pose de dÃ©licates questions de fait et de droit . Il convient notamment de dÃ©terminer si le requÃ©rant, dÃ©tenu Ã Orvieto, aurait pu effectivement obtenir de pouvoir comparaÃ®tre Ã Bologne et, d'autre pa rt , si sa dÃ©fense a Ã©tÃ© correctement assurÃ©e Ã l'audience du 3 dÃ©cembre 1977 par l'avocat commis d'office le jour mÃªme . Enfin, il y aura lieu de dÃ©terminer si, dans leur ensemble, les dispositions pri ses par les autoritÃ©s italiennes compÃ©tentes pour perme ttre au re quÃ©rant de se dÃ©fendre effectivement en personne et/ou avec l'assistance d'un avocat correspondent aux exigences de la Convention et notamment de son art icle 6, paragraphe 3(c) . - 161 -
Etant donnÃ© la complexitÃ© de ces questions, la Commission est d'avis que leur examen relÃ¨ve de celui du fond de l'affaire et, partant, que la requÃªte ne saurait Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . La Commission constate d'autre part que la requÃªte ne se heurte Ã aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© . Par ces motifs, la Commission , DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE, tous moyens de fond rÃ©servÃ©s .
(TRANSLATION) THE FACT S The facts of the case, as set out by the applicant, may be summarised as follows . Francesco Goddi, an Italian national, was bom at Orune (Italy) on 5 August 1951 . In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr Marcantonio Bezicheri, barrister at the Bologna Bar . The applicant was charged with the following offence s i . threatening use of a fireatm (Art . 612 of the Italian Criminal Code) and unlawful possession and carrying of firearms and ammunition (Art . 697 of the CC), in that he did on 2 May 1975 threaten S .M . with a firearm following a dispute concerning the management of a herd of livestock ; ii . jointly with M .F ., unlawful possession and carrying of military weapons, damage to property (Art . 635 of the CC) and causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property (Art . 703 of the CC), in that he did on 17 May 1975 cause two grenades from the army to explode in front of the house of S .M . On 6]une 1975 the District Court of Forli sentenced the applicant, at first instance, to 18 month' imprisonment ("reclusioni') and a fine of 300000 lire on the counts relating to the events of 2 May 1975 and acquitted him for lack of evidence on the counts relating to the events of 17 May 1975 . An appeal against this decision was lodged by the Public Prosecutor, the Senior Public Prosecutor and both the accused . The Senior PubGc Prosecutor submitted that the decision was wrong in so far as it applied to the facts of the case the principle of a continuin g
offence in respect of the charges against the accused since the offences arising from the facts were different in kind : the first two were serious offences ("delitti") whereas the third was a minor offence ("contravvenzionÃ©') . The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittal for lack of evidence concerning the events of 17 May . The applicant pleaded extenuating circumstances . The first hearing before the Bologna Court of Appeal was set for 30 November 1976 . The lawyer who had until then undertaken the applicant's defence and drawn up the grounds of appeal, Mr Monteleone, did not appear at the hearing . The Court of Appeal therefore assigned a lawyer, Mr G . Maio, to the applicant . The hearing of the case was subsequently adjourned to 9 July 1977 . At the second hearing the applicant appointed Mr Bezicheri as his defence counsel . However, it was not possible to deal with the case during this hearing as the applicant's co-accused . M .F . had not had the summons to appear served on him . A new hearing was set for 3 December following . On that occasion, however, the trial took place in the absence of the accused and of his lawyer, Mr Bezicheri . The applicant had in fact been arrested on 29 October 1977 and held in custody at Orvieto in connection with other matters, but the court did not know this . It appears from the documents in the file, however, that on 23 September 1977 the Senior Public Prosecutor at the Bologna Court of Appeal had asked the Orvieto Public Prosecutor to notify the accused of the date of the hearing and make any necessary arrangements for transferring him to Bologna . The applicant also claims that he himself told the appropriate prison authorities about the trial and informed them of the date of the hearing but that no arrangements were made to enable him to appear in court . The hearing took place in the absence of the accused, who was declared unlawfully absent under Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . For his part, the lawyer appointed by the applicant at the second heari ng in the trial, Mr Bezicheri, did not receive notification of the summons to appear and accordingly did not appear either . The summons has in fact been sent to the lawyer earlier chosen by the applicant as his defence counsel, Mr Monteleone . At the hearing the court then and there assigned a lawyer to defend the applicant . In his submissions this lawyer simply referred to the grounds of appeal . The Bologna Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to four years' imprisonment ("reclusione") and a fine of 500000 lire for all the seriou s
offences and to three months' imprisonment ("arresto") and a fine of 30000 lire for the minor offences . It also held that the extenuating circumstances were offset by the aggravating circumstances . The applicant applied to the Court of Cassation for review of this decision . He argued that the decision should be quashed on three grounds : i . that the defence lawyer had not been notified of the date of the hearing , a circumstance which, by the terms of Articles 410 and 134 taken together of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, should have rendered the trial null and viod ; ii . that the Court of Appeal's decision that the applicant was unlawfully absent was wrong in law, since he was in custody and had been unable to appear before the Court ; an d
iii . that the court failed to give reasons for its decision . The Court of Cassation dismissed the application for review in its decision of 8 November 1979, which was lodged with the registry of the court on 20 February 1980 . The Court of Cassation held that the notice of the date of the hearing served on the first lawyer appointed by the applicant was to be regarded as sufficient from the point of view of Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . In its judgment, the fact that an accused appointed another lawyer to represent him did not in itself imply withdrawal of the instructions given to the original one . In the absence of any express declaration to that effect by the applicant, the Court of Appeal could validly hold that the notice served on the first defence lawyer satisfied the requirements oa Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . As to whether the finding that the applicant was unlawfully absent was wrong in law, the Court of Cassa tion noted that the impediment pleaded by the applicant and which be claimed made the Court of Appeal's decision to declare him unlawfully absent wrong in law, was not .known to the judges . Accordingly they could not be impugned for having concluded that the applicant was unlawfully absent.
The first fround of appeal was rejected as manifestly ill founded . COMPLAINT S The applicant complains that his case was not given a fair hearing because it had not been possible for him to be assisted by a defence lawyer of his own choosing and because he was wrongly declared unlawfully absent . He alleges a breach of Article 6(1) and 3(c) of the Convention .
THE LA W The applicant complains of having been denied the right to defend himself against a criminal charge before the Bologna Court of Appeal in that neither he himself nor his chosen lawyer were present at the hearing on 3 December 1977 at which he was sentenced in absentia to terms of imprisonment and fines . He explains that he himself was in prison at Orvieto and that the summons was not served on his lawyer . The Government replies that the summons had been duly served on a lawyer previously appointed by the applicant and whose instructions remained in force . It also points out that a lawyer was assigned by the court at the hearing itself to put the applicant's case . The Commission has examined the present application in the light of Article 6(3)(c) of the Convention, which provides : "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights : ( . . . . . . . . . .) c . to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pays for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require : .. (.......... The Commission considers that this application raises complex question s of fact and law . In particular it has to be determined whether the applicant, when he was in custody at Orvieto, could in fact have managed to appear in court in Bologna and also whether he was properly defended at the hea ri ng on 3 December 1977 by the lawyer assigned by the court that same day . Furthermore, it should be determined whether, as a whole, the measures taken by the competent italian authorities to enable the applicant to defend himself effectively in person and/or with the assistance of a lawyer satisfy the requirements of the Convention and, in pa rt icular, of Article 6(3)(c) . Given the complexi ty of these matters, the Commission is of the opinion that they necessitate an examination of the me ri ts of the case and that accordingly the application cannot be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27(2) of the Convention . The Commission also finds that the application is not inadmissible on any other ground .
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without prejudging the merits .
- 165 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 05/03/1982Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 498
 l'article 410
 l'article 410
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27