Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19800715-869279
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 01:27:33+00:00

Document:
PIERSACK c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche PIERSACK c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8692/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-07-15;8692.79 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : PIERSACKDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/ R EQUETE NÂ° 8692/79 Christian PIERSACK v/BELGIU M Christian PIERSACK c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 15 July 1980 on Ihe admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 15 juillet 1980 sur la recevabililÃ© de la requÃ©l e
Article 6, paragraph I of the Conventio n lal The independence and impartrÃ¢liry of a Courr of Assize put in quesrion by the fact that the president had taken part in the proceeding .s before thejudgenrent as a fnember of the prosecution, and rhar he rook part in this case in the decision on guilt and sentence . Complaint declared adintsstb7e. Ibl Does the expression "established by law" refer only to legal provisions of an institutional characrer or also to those of an organic nature ?
Article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Conventio n lal IndÃ©pendance et irnpartialitÃ© d'une cour d'assises mrse en doute du fait que son prÃ©sident aurait participÃ© Ã /a procÃ©du re antÃ©rieure au jugement en tant que membre du parquer et qu'en 7'espÃ©ce, il a participÃ© Ã la dÃ©cision sur la cu7pabilirÃ© er Ã la fixation de la peine G'rief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable . Ibl L'expression rr Ã©tabli par la toiÂ» vise-t-elle seulement les drsposirrons lÃ©gales de caractÃ¨re institutionnel ou aussi les dispositions de caractÃ©re organique ?
IFng7ish : er p 27RI .e
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'its ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant, Christian Piersack, est un ressonissanl belge, nÃ© en 1948 el arniurier de profession . Il est actuellement dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de Mon s ?(19
IBelgiqnel et est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Conimission par Me Martial Lancaster, nvocal au barreau de Bruxelles . Dans la nuit du 22 au 23 avril 1976, deux ressortissants francais ont Ã©tÃ© tuÃ©s Ã Bruxelles par des coups de rÃ©volver tirÃ©sd'une voiture . Dans cette vorlure se Irouvaient le requhrant el deux autres personnes . dont un ressortissant porlugais . S, qui postÃ©rieurement s'enfuira au Portuga l SoupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir Ã©tÃ© l'auteur de cÃ© double assassinat, le requÃ©rant fit l'objet le 9 juillel 1976 d'un nrandat d'arrÃªt dÃ©cernÃ© par le juge d'instruclion du tribunal de premiÃ¨re instance de Bruxelles . ArrÃ¨lÃ© en France, il fut remis le 13 janvier 1977 aux autoritÃ©s belges, l'extradition ayant Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e par le Gouvernement franÃ§ais . Le 10 novembre 1978 . le requÃ©ram a Ã©lÃ© condamnÃ© par la cour d'assises du Brabant pour avoir participÃ© Ã un des deux meurtres . La Cour a constatÃ© que le c,o-accusÃ© S . . arr@tÃ© au Ponugal . n'avait pu, Ã©tant de nalionalitÃ© portngaise, Ã©lre extrad Ã© Le jury a dÃ©clarÃ© le requÃ©rant coupable par sept voix contre cinq . Il a doric lallu qu'une major :lÃ© de la cour' s'ajoute Ã la majoritÃ© du jury pour que la condalnnalion soil prononcÃ©e " Le requÃ©rant s'est pourvu en cassatiÃ´n contre ce lugement . Il a soutenu que la c .our d'asslses n'Ã©lait pas composÃ©e conformÃ©men au droit belge et a mis en doure l'impartialitÃ© et l'indÃ©pendance du prÃ©sident de ladite cour, M . W . Il a fait valoir Ã cet Ã©gard que ce magistrat avait, alors qu'il Ã©tait premier subsGlul du Procureur du Roi, reÃ§u le 4 fÃ©vrier 1977, une apostille du juge d'instruction, aclressÃ©e au Procureur du Roi et portant la mention manuscrile Â« Ã l'atlention de M . W . n . Par cette apostille le juge d'instruclion, M P, demandait au Procureur du Roi de lui faire connaitre sa dÃ©cision quant Ã a dÃ©nonc :ation des faits par le Parquet aux autoritÃ©s portugaises . en ce qui concerne le co-inculpÃ© du requÃ©rant, que celui-ci affirmair Ãªtre l'auteur clu double assassinai . Ce fait Ã©tait de nature Ã prouver . aux yeux du requÃ©ranl . cque c'Ã©tail ce magistrat, et non un aulre magistral du parquet, qui s'Ã©tait occupÃ© du dossier, en participant Ã l'attaire d'une maniÃ©re ou d'une nulre, pendant l'instruction . en qualilÃ© de magistrat du ministÃ©re public . En consÃ©quence, jl n'aurait pas dÃ» prÃ©sjder la cour d'assises, ainsi qu'il est prÃ©v u
' Ln annr dussises conrnrend un nrCsitlenl el tlen ~65essf:rns : elle siÃ©ge avec l'assislance du
jurv Iv . uriclc 119 du [ode iutlici :d a
" F.n ellel . r'arricle 351 du cooe rl'Insvucl .on aim:nelle dsnose mÃ¦ 351 4 10 ocr 1967 lan 152 . naraÃ§nauhe 3 Si l'nccusÃ© riesr dÃ©clarÃ© counabla. rLr lail nrimeinal qu'Ã la simnle majoolÃ©, les juqes dÃ©ilbCiCin einm euv sW Ie nrCOiC poinr . L'aQuM1lenrem sela pronoricÃ© si la majoril0 de la cour ne se rÃ©unu ,i la maionrÃ© du jurv
A Particle 127 du code judiciaire' . disposition donf le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© la violation . Le 21 fÃ©vrier 1979 la Cour de cassation a rejetÃ© le pÃ´urvoi . Elle a soulignÃ© qu'en vertu de l'article 6, paragraphe I de la Convention - qu'elle a appliquÃ© d'ollice - rr tout juge dont on peut lÃ©gitimement redouter qu'il ne prÃ©sente pas les garanlles d'imparGalitÃ© auxquelles tout accusÃ© a droit est tenu de s'abstenly de participer Ã la dÃ©clsion n . Elle a ajoutÃ© que a pour que l'impanialitÃ© cl'un juge soit considÃ©rÃ©e conime compromise en raison de son imervenlion antÃ©rieure dans la mÃ©nie affaire en qualitÃ© cle magistrat du ministÃ©re puhlic, il n'est pas indispensable que cette inlervemion ait consistÃ© en une prise de position personnelle ou un acte prÃ©cis de poursuite ou rl'instrucGon Â» . Dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, la juridiction suprÃ©me a constalÃ© qu'en effet, le juge d'instruction P . avait adressÃ© le 4 fÃ©vrier 1977 une apostille au Proeureur du Roi de Bruxelles avec une nienlion manuscrite Â« Ã l'attention de M W . rr, niais que du seul fait que le juge d'instruction avait transmis cette apostille ne rÃ©sultait pas nÃ©cessairelnent que M W avait rempli dans l'affaire les fonctions de niinistÃ¨re public . Elle a estimÃ©, par ailleurs, que Â« du seul fait que l'existence d'une apostille adressÃ©e nomniÃ©ment par le juge d'in~lruclion Ã un magistrat du ministÃ©re public . mais dont rien n'Ã©tablit ni qu'elle lui soit parvenue, ni qu'elle l'ait amenÃ© Ã s'inlÃ©resser mÃªme indirectement Ã l'affaire, on ne saurail prÃ©sumer que ce magistrat est intervenu dans la ceuse dans l'exercice ou Ã l'occasion de l'exercice de ses fonctions de niagistrat du minislÃ©re public Â» Elle a notÃ©, enfin, que la rÃ©ponse Ã ladite aposlille lut donnÃ©e par tin aulre maglstral du parquel . Devant la Cour de cassation, l'avocat gÃ©nÃ©ml avail . dans un exposÃ© de 31 pages, r â¢,onclu Ã la violation par la cour d'assises du Brabanl de l'arbcle 127 du code judiciaire et de l'article 6 . paragraphe 1 de la Convention . qprÃ©s avoir Irach l'Ã©volution de la jurisprudence belge dans des affaires semblables, il a considÃ©rÃ© que les circonslanr .es de l'affaire du requÃ©rant Ã©lalenl sulfisanles pour faire rerlouler que le prÃ©sidenl de la cour d'assises n'avait pas prÃ©sentÃ© toules les garanties d'imparlnlitÃ© auxquelles le requÃ©rant avait droit .
GRIEF S Le requÃ©rant se plaint que le prÃ©sident de la cour d'assises qui l'a condamnÃ© s'est occupÃ© de son affaire pendant l'instruclion en sa qualilÃ© de substitut du Procureur du Roi Il eslime que . de ce fai1, la con7position de la cour d'assises n'Ã©tait pas confornte au droit belge, en particulier Ã l'article 127 du code judiciaire . Il considÃ¨re, en outre . que sa cause n'a pas hlÃ© enlendu e ' Lmlh ;lc 127 Ja coqn Ãutllclnirn slipulc qu, : . â¢ A ncmn tlc nnlihn . h :s inarJls~r,n5 qw onl u:mnli a ;vis I :dlnirc Ics lonci inns tiq iuur . rl' ;nsbur.llnn ci rfc n inisidre nublic ou nui nni siairuÃ© sur le rFnlcurani rle l'insunr. i ion nc ncaveni ni pitsirlci las assises ni inro assnssew . .. .
por un Iribunal indÃ©perirlanl et intpartial, comnte l'exige l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Conventlon . dont il allÃ©gue la violation .
PROCÃDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N Par dÃ©cision du 3 dÃ©cembre 1979, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© de porter la requÃ©te Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement belge, pour observations sur la recevabilitÃ©, conlormÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, paragraphe 2 lettre Ibl de son RÃ¨glenienl inlÃ©rieur Le Gouvernement fut invitÃ©, dans un dÃ©lai de dix semaines, Ã prÃ©senter une version des faits de la cause et, en particulier Ã donner des explications sur le rÃ´le Ã©ventuellement jouÃ© par M . W . au moment c1e l'instruction de l'aflaire pÃ©nale du requÃ©rant . Le 30 janvier 1980, vu les motifs invoquÃ©s par le Gouvernement, le PrÃ©sident de la Commission a reportÃ© au 19 mars 1980, l'Ã©chÃ©ance du dÃ©lai imparti . Le 26 mars 1980, le Gouvernemenl belge a envoyÃ© ses observations Ã©crites sur la recevabilitÃ© et le 28 avril 1980 le requÃ©rant a envoyÃ© les siennes en rÃ©ponse . Par dÃ©cision du 12 mai 1980, la Commission a invitÃ© le Gouvernement belge Ã lui faire parvenir . dans un dÃ©lai de deux semaines, les conclusions de l'avocat gÃ©nÃ©ral Ã la Cour de cassation, M V ., sur le jugemem de la cour cl'assises du Brabant du 20 novembre 1978 . Ces conclusions ont Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ©es le 18 juin 1980 . ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIES A . Le Gouvernemen t 1 Quant Ã l'Apuisement des voies de recours interne s Le Gouvernenient fa4 remarquer, en premier lieu, que le requÃ©rant n'a jamnis invoquÃ© devant la Cour de cassation la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention . Il s'est limilÃ© Ã allÃ©guer la violation de l'article 127 du Code judir â¢,ioire Le Gouvernement conslale, toutefois . que l'avocat gÃ©nÃ©ral Ã la Cour de r,assation a estimÃ© que le ntoyen tirÃ© de la vrolation de l'article 127 du Code ludiciaire Ã©tait londÃ© et consliluait aussi une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convenuon . de sorte que la cour a effectivement examinÃ© l'Ã©ventuelle violation de cetle disposition . Le Gouvernement admet, par consÃ©quent, que dans le cas d'espÃ©ce le requÃ©rant a satislait Ã la condilion de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention . 2 Quant Ã la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 6, paragraphe l de la Convention a
Les loncrions de M. W . en tanr que premier subsrirur du Procureur rlu Ro i
Le Gouvernement lait observer qu'A l'Ã©poque de l'ouvenure du dossier du requÃ©rant au pirquet de Bruxeiles, M . W . y exerÃ§ait les fonctions d e
premier subsulut du Procureur du Roi . Il Ã©tait chargÃ© de la direction de la section B du parquet, c'esl-Ã -dire celle oti sont traitÃ©s les dossiers relallfs aux attentats contre les personnes . Parmi ces dossiers, un sort particulier Ã©tait rÃ©servÃ© aux affaires criminelles, dont l'examen Ã©lail confiÃ© Ã un magislral spÃ©cialisÃ© el jouissanl d'une situation d'autonomie Ã l'Ã©gard du premier subslilul dirigeant la sectio n Le dossier du requÃ©ranl a Ã©tÃ© confiÃ© successivement Ã deux substituts du Procureur du Roi, d'abord Ã Mme C ., ensuite Ã M . N Lorsqu'un pro . blÃ©me important se prÃ©sentait, ces magistrats en rÃ©fÃ©raient l'un et l'autre direclemenl au Procureur du Roi . qui lenait Ã @tre rÃ©guliÃ¨rement au courant de l'affaire et, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, Ã prendre lui-mÃ©me les dÃ©cisions qui s'imposaient .
En tant que Â« chef de section n, M . . exerÃ§ait un contrÃ´le sur la correction formelle des rÃ©quisitions ; W1 2 pouvait, en outre, discuter avec le magistrat chargÃ© des affaires criniinelles de l'orientation Ã clonner Ã une affaire ; 3 . donnait au mÃªme magistrat, si celui-ci le demandait, des consultations d'ordre juridique au sujet des problÃ©mes que pouvait poser la qualification des fait s Toutefois, le Gouvernement soutient que M W n'a exercÃ©, dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, aucune de ces trois fonctions, vu que le 13 dÃ©cembre 1977 il a prÃ©tÃ© serment comme conseiller Ã la cour d'appel de Bruxelles Or, ce ne fut que le 12 mai que le substitut du Procureur du Roi N a signÃ© le rÃ©quisitoire de prise de corps . et le 16 juin 1978 que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ© devant la Cour d'assises Par ailleurs, le Gouvernement souligne que la qualification des taits n'Ã©tait pas de nature Ã soulever des difficultÃ©s et les problÃ¨mesqu ;auraient pu poser les rÃ©quisitions finales n'apparaissaient pas encore lorsque M . W . quilta le parquet pour la cour d'appel de Bruxelle s Le Gouvernement note enfin que, quant Ã la dÃ©cision au sujel de l a procÃ©dure Ã charge du requÃ©rant . elfe ne ful pas prise par le parquet de Bruxelles, mais par le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral auprÃ¨s de la cour d'appel- de Bruxelles personnellement, sur rapport du Procureur du Roi . b . L'intervention de M . W. dans la prAsente affaire Selon le Gouvernement, M . W n'est intervenu dans la prÃ©sente affaire qu'Ã trois reprise s 1 . II a transmis Ã Mnie C . l'apostille du 4 fÃ©vrier 1977 que le juge d'instruction P . avait adressÃ©e au Procureur du Roi avec la mention rnanuscrile a Ã l'attention de M . W . n . La rÃ©ponse Ã cetle apostille fut donnÃ©e par Mme C le 9 fÃ©vrier 1977 - 213 -
2 . II a appos "e, son paraphe sur une piÃ¨ce du dossier portant le NÂ° 173 . Cene piÃ¨ce esl iine lettre du 13 janvier 1977, rÃ©digÃ©e en nÃ©erlandais, accompagnhe de trois annexes et adressÃ©e par le Procureur du Roi Ã Coiutrai Ã son collÃ©gue Ã Bruxelles aux fins d'informer celuici de l'extradition du requÃ©rant . Cette lettre a Ã©lÃ© soumise Ã M W . en sa qualitÃ© de chef de la section B . Il l'a paraphÃ©e et l'n envoyÃ©e Ã Mme C ., qui en a ussurÃ© elle mÃ©me la bansinission au juge d'instruction par une apostille du 17 janvier 197 7 3 II a apposr ; son paraphe sur une piÃ©ce du dossier porrant le NÂ° 228 Cette piÃ¨ce est une apostille du 20 juin 1977 signÃ©e par le Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral auprÃ¨s de la cour d'appel de Bruxelles, par laquelle celui ci transmattail au Procnreur rlu Rni Ã Brnxelles la commission rogatoire exÃ©cutÃ©e en vue d'entendre un prÃ©suinÃ© co-auteur portugais du requÃ©rant . M W . a paiaphÃ© la piA.ce et l'a envoyÃ©e Ã M . N qui l'a Iransmise au juge d'instruction par apostille du 22 juin 197 7 Sur la base des ienselgnements susmentionnÃ©s . le Gouvernernent coriclut que M W . est Intervenu Ã trois reprises dans la procÃ©dure Ã charge dn requÃ©rant, mais que snn rÃ´le s'est limitÃ© Ã celui de i boite aux lettres Â» Il estime . par consÃ©quent, que ce niagisnat n'a jamais exercÃ© ses fonctions de magistral du ministr-re public dans l'aflaire du requÃ©rant et qu'aucun Ã©lÃ©menr ne perniet de prÃ©sumer qu'il .se soit intÃ©ressÃ© directement ou indirectement Ã celle-ci . Son iniparlialilÃ© n'Ã©tant dÃ¨s lors pas compromise, la requÃ©te est . selon le Gouvernement, manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ã©lre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable par la Commission, en application de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . de la Convention . Le requÃ©rant .B 1 . Quant Ã l'Apuisement des voies de recours interne s Le requÃ©rant admet n'avoir jamais invoquÃ© devant'la Cour de cassation l'article 6 de la Convention . Il estime, toutefois . qu'il a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours inlernes, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention car il a allÃ©guÃ© la violanonde l'article 127 du Code judiciaire qui, selon lui . Â« consacre le prinape de l'indÃ©pendance et de l'impartialitÃ© du Iribunal et est une Ã©mana. . tion belge de l'arlicle 6 de la Convention ~~ . 2
Quant Ã la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Conventio n
a Les fonctions de M . W en rant que prenrier ,suhsrirur du Procureur du Ro i Le requÃ©rant souligne, en premier !ieu, qu'il ne met pas en cause l'impartialitÃ© e ; l'indÃ©pendance de M W . en tant que personne Il soutient seulemem qu'un magistrat qui a eu l'occasion de prendre connaissance du clossier et, Ã©ventuellenienl cle le traiter alors qu'il exerÃ§nit le minislÃ©re public , - 214 -
donc parlie poursuivante, peut avoir eu une opinion en fonr,tion mÃ¨me de la nnssion rÃ©pressive qui Ã©tait la sienne Ã l'Ã©poque . Il est gÃ©nÃ©ralement admis qu'un magistrnt du parquet, habituÃ© Ã examiner les dossier sous l'angle rÃ©pressif s'en fail une opinion tout autre qu'un magistrat du siÃ¨g e Le requÃ©rant conteste l'affirmation du Gouvernement selon laquelle le dossier a Ã©tÃ© confiÃ© Ã un magislrat spÃ©cialisÃ©, jouissanl ci'une situalion d'autonomie 1 l'Ã©garci du preniier substitut du Procureur du Roi Il fait valoir n cet Ã©gard que l'organisalion du parquet en Belgique est une organisation hiÃ©rarchique le MinistÃ¨re public est tin et indivisible, les substituts du Procureur du Roi exercent les fonctions du Procureur du Roi el les premiers substituts ont un pouvoir hiÃ©rarchique sur les substilut s Le requÃ©rant conleste . en outre . que M W n'ait exercÃ© aucune des Irois fonctions auxquelles le Gouvernement fait rÃ©fÃ©rence parce qu'il a prÃ©tÃ© serment le 13 dÃ©r â¢.embre 1977 coninie conseiller Ã la cour d'appel de Bruxelles, alors que l'instruction se serait terntinÃ©e le 12 mai 1978 . Selon lui . l'instruction Ã©tait en fail totalement lerminÃ©e Ã la fin de 1977 . La partie la plus importante de l'instruction a eu lieu pendant l'annÃ©e 1977 et elle s'est terniinÃ©e formellement en juln 1978 parce qu'un des co-accusÃ©s du requÃ©iant Ã©tait portugais et se trouvail au Portugal Or, ce n'est qu'aprÃ¨s de trÃ©s nombreuses difficultÃ©s que les autoritÃ©s belges onl obtenu que ce ressortissant portugais soit amenÃ© en Belgique pour 24 heures afin de procÃ©der Ã une reconstitutio n Il estime . nÃ©anmoins, que cet aspect de la queslion n'est pas dÃ©ter. minant car le Codr â¢ judiciaire ne prÃ©voit nullement que pour ctre AcartÃ© de la prÃ©sidence de la Cour d'assises, il ait fallu participer Ã loute l'instruclion . Le Code est formel pour dire que ne peuvent prÃ©sider les assises les magistrats qui ont renipli, dans une affaire, les fonctions de MinistÃ¨re public . mi;me pendant une pÃ©riode exlrÃ¨mement courle . b . L'intervemion de M . W dans la prÃ©serne affair e Le requÃ©rant fait rentarquer que M W . est intervenu Ã trois reprises dans son dossier en tant que premier substitut du Procureur du Roi : il a transmis l'apostllle du 4 fÃ©vrier 1977 qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© adressÃ©e nommÃ©ment par le juge d'instruction et a paraphÃ© deux piÃ©ces du dossier . Contrairement Ã ce qu'affirme le Gouvernement, le requÃ©rant soutient cÂµie le rÃ´le de M . W . ne ful pas purement passif Il fait valoir que lorsqu'un magistrat signe un document . il le lit et que lorsqu'on lui transmet un dossier, il le lit Ã©galement . Il esllme, par ailleurs . que l'article 127 du Code judiciahe doit s'interprÃ©tcr de maniÃ©re extensive lorsqu'il se rÃ©fÃ¨re aux maglstrats qui ont rernpli dans une. affaire les fonclions de MinistÃ©re public, il s'agil de la fonction en tant que telle et il n'est prÃ©cisÃ© nulle part si cette fonction doit i :tre importante ou non . 715
II relÃ¨ve . en outre, qu'il est intportanl de prendre en considÃ©ration la position chi requÃ©rant A son avis, il importe peu de savoir exactement quel a Ã©lA le rÃ´le jouÃ© par M W ., ce qui importe c'est que la personne qui est jugÃ©e soit convaincue d'Ã©tre jugÃ©e par un Iribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial . Enfin, le requÃ©rant fait remarquer que M . V ., avocat gÃ©nÃ©ral, a soutenu devant la Cour de cassation la IhÃ¨se qu'il y avait, dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, violalion de l'article 127 du Code judiciaire et de l'anicle 6 de la Convenlion .
EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint que sa cause n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© entendue par un 1 uibunal indÃ©penclam et inipartial . du tait que le prÃ©sident de la Cour d'assises qui l'a condamnÃ© s'Ã©tait auparavant occupÃ© de son dossier en tant que magislrat du MlnistÃ¨re public . II considÃ©re en outre que la Cour d'assises n'Ã©tail pas composÃ¨e, conlorniÃ©ment au droil belge, et il allÃ¨gue la violation de l'arlicle r), paragraphe 1, de la Convention . Cette disposilion stipule notaniment que Â« toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soil'emendue Ã©quitablemem, publiquement el dans un dÃ©lai rnisonnable . par un Iribunal indÃ©pendant et impanial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidero . . . du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre elle ~ 2 . La Coinmission prend note que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur admet que le re,quÃ©rant satisfait i la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recoÃ»rs inlernes, lelle qu'elle est prÃ©vue Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . 3 . Elle considÃ©re que la prÃ©sente requÃªte a deux aspects distincts prenriÃ©remenl la quesdon cie savoir si la cause du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© entendue par tin LL tribunal indÃ©pendanl et iniparlial n, et deuxiÃ¨mement celle de savoir si ce tribunal Ã©lait Â« Ã©labli par la loi Â», ces deux garanties Ã©tant prÃ©vues Ã l'artlcle 6, paragraphe I, de la Conventio n n Stir le point de savoir si la Cour d'assises Ã©tait un Â« Iribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial n Le requÃ©rant dÃ©duil de la prÃ©sence au dossier de certaines aposlilles que le juge prÃ©sidant la Cour d'assises qui a prononcÃ© sa condamnation avail eu aupnrnvnnl Ã Imiter de l'aflnire en qualitÃ© de membre du parquet et ne pouvait ainsi Ãªtre u ussi impartial que l'exige l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . II souligne par ailleurs que l'opinion des juges de la cour paraÃ®t avoir Ã©tÃ© dÃ©lerminanle dans le verdir.l de culpabilitÃ© prononcÃ© Ã son endroit et que ces niÃªme juges ont participÃ© avec le jury Ã la fixation de la peine . .s De son cÃ´tÃ©, le Gouvernemenl dÃ©fendeur allirine que le rÃ´le jouÃ© par le prlsidenl, alors qu'il Ã©tait nienibre du parquet . s'est limitÃ© Ã la transmissio n 216
de documents, sans participation rÃ©elle Ã des aclivitÃ©s relevant de ia poursuite . La Commission constate qu'il y a IA contestalion sur cerlaines questions de fart, de sorte que de plus amples investigatlons se rÃ©vAlenl nÃ©cessaires . Par ailleurs, il conviendra en particulier d'Ã©tablir la portÃ©e exacte des mots Â« tribunal impartial Â» figurant Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . Enfin, la question se posera Ã©venLuellement de savoir dans quelle mesure l'examen de l'affaire par la Cour de cassation doit Ãªtre pris en considÃ©ralion pour Ã©tablh si, en dÃ©finitive, les garanties d'impartialilÃ© voulues par cet article ont ou non Ã©tÃ© assurÃ©es au requÃ©ran t b . Sur le point de savoir si la Cour d'assises Ã©tail un tribunal Â« Ã©tabli par la loi Â» Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue en outre qu'il n'a pas Ã©lÃ© jugÃ© par un tribunal r( Ã©tabli par la loi Â», car la composition de la Cour d'assises n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© conforme au drolt belge, notamment Ã l'article 127 du code judiciaire . La Commisslon remarque toutelois que, dans son arrÃ¨l du 21 fÃ©vrier 1979, la Cour de cassation n'a pas trouvÃ© que cette disposition aurait Ã©tÃ© violÃ©e . Elle estime par ailleurs que la situation exposÃ©e par le requÃ©rant . Ã supposer qu'elle soit avÃ©rÃ©e, pose un problÃ©me d'interprÃ©tation des mois Â« Ã©labli par la loi n figurant Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, notamment quant au point de savoir s'ils visent seulement des dispositions lÃ©gales de caractÃ©re institutionnel Ifondenient lÃ©gal de l'existence du tribunall ou aussi des dispositions de caractÃ©re organlque (organisation et fonctionnement du tribunal) .
La Commission estime qu'en l'Ã©tat du dossier elle ne saurait dÃ©clarer la requ@te nianifestenient mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27 . paragraphe 2, de la Convenlion, compte tenu des investigations de fait Ã effectuer et des problÃ©mes d'interprÃ©talion Ã rÃ©soudre . De telles tÃ ches relÃ¨vent de l'examen du fond de l'alfaire . Par ces niotifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARELA REOUÃTE RECEVABLE , tout moyen de fond Ã©tanl rÃ©servÃ© .
1 TRAN .SLATION I
THE FACT S The facts of the case as slated by the applicant may be summarised as follow s The appllcant . Christian Piersack ; is a Belgian national born in 1948 and a gunsnTith by profession At the hToment he is irl prison at Mons IBelgiuml and is represented before the Contmission by Mr Manial Lancaster, a barrislerpraclising in Brussrl s .
On Ihe night of 2223 April 1976 iwo French nationals were killed in Brussels by revolver shots fired fronTa motor car . The applicant and two other persons, one of whom was a Portuguese national, who later fled to Portugal, were in this car . Under suspicion of having committed this double murder an arres t warrant was issued againsl Ihe applicant by the investigating judge of the Brussels regional court . He was arrested in France and handed over on 13 JanuarÂµ 1977 to the Belgian authorities, the French Governmeni having aulhorised his extradition . In November 1978, die applicant was convicted by the Brabant Assize Court for having taken part in one of these two murders The courl noted that his r,o-accused had been arrested in Portugal but could not be extradited as he was of Portuguese nationality . The jury found the applicant guilty by seven . to five It was therefore necessary for the majority of the coun' to agree with Ihe majority of the lury in order that he could be convicted " The applicant appealed against Ihis judgment to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Assize was nol constituted in accordance with Belgian law and expressing doubts as to the impartiality and independence of the presidenl of Ihe court, Mr W . The latter had, while he was senior deputy public prosecutor, received on 4 February 1977 a note from the investigating judge addressed to the public prosecucor and bearing the handwritten endorsement "lor Ihe anemion of Mr W ." In this note ihe investigating judge, Mr P, requested the public prosecutor to inform him of his decision with regard to reporting Ihe facts concerning the applicant co-accused, whom ihe applicant maintained was responsible for the double murder to the Portuguese authorities . The applicant considered Ihat this tended to prove that the officer i n
' The Assiic eoun cons~s~s of ;r nmsideni aud Iwo lud9es : il sirs with a iur y Isee Seclran 119 0l ihc Cuuns Acl l Arlir.le 351 ol rhe Cor7n of CrirulrcJ Procedure reads as Inllows 351 . IM :I nl 1 0 Oclubnr 1967 IArlicle 152, onmryaph 3 1 II I he lCCuSCd i5 nnlv Innrld rluillv nrl Vhe nrinclpal charye by a S, mple maionlv Ihe iudge5 Slwll tlClihei .lvl dniOn951 InCrrwÃ§lves ori i hC Sanne uuesnon, The ncCUSetl shall he acuui l letl d i he iuaio/nV o1 Ihe Cowr does n01 agr2e with Ihr; moi0wry of i hc ory . l
question, and not another member of the public prosecutor's office, dealt with this file and was engaged on ihe case in one way or another during the investigation in his capacity as a member of the public prosecutor's office It lotlowed Ihal by virtue of section 127 of the Courts Act, which the applicant alleges has been violated, he ought not to have pre~ ;ded over the assize court ' The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on 21 February 1979 . The Court said that under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention Iwhich it applied of ils own motion) "every judge il may reasonably be feared does not ofler the guarantees of inlpaniality to which every accused person is entitled shall be under a duty not lo take part in the decision" . The court went on "for a judge's impartiality to be considered as aflected on account of his having previously been concerned with the same case as a member ol the prosecutor's department it is not essential that the acuon taken by him should consist in stating a personal opinion or taking a specific measure connected with the prosecution or investigation" . In the instant case the Court of Cassation in fact found ttiat the investigation judge . P ., had on 4 February 1977 addressed a note to the Brussels public prosecutor with a handwritten endorsement "for the atterltion of Mr W .", but it did not necessarily lollow from the mere fact that the investigating judge had sent this nole that Mr W . had acied as a publir. prosecutor in the case . It further held that "from the mere fact of the existence of the note addressed by name by the investigating judge to an officer of the pubGc prosecutor's department . when there is nothing to show that it actually reached him, nor that it caused him to concern hlmsell even indirectly with the case, it cannoi be presunied that this officer was involved in the case in, or on Ihe occasion of ihe exercice ot his functions as an oflicer of the prosecuring department" Finatly, it found that the reply to the note was given by another olficer of Ihe prosecuting department . Before the Court of Cassarion . Ihe Advocate General in a memorial running to 31 pages submitted that the Brabant Court of Assize had violated Article 127 of the Courts Act and Article 6 . paragraph 1, of the Convention . Afier setting out the history of the various decisions of the Belgian courts in similar cases he reached the conclusion that the circumstances of the applicant's were sufficient to make il possible that the president of the Court of Assize did not offer all the guarantees of impartiality to which the applicant was entitled .
COMPLAINT S The applicant complains that the president of the Court of Assize by which he was convicted was involved in his case during Ihe invesligation in his capacity as deputy public prosecutor . The composition of ihe Court of Assiz e ' Secliou 127 ol Ihe Couns Aci pmvides Ihal "ihe n r ocerâ¢dm9s shall be null and vortl d olllcers wlio have a[ICtl as rnvesli9al l oÃl indgC Or o r osCculor m Ihe case oi who have made decisions . Ielallny I(1 Ihe Invesht,lnl iolns act a5 r1leSlde111 o r i5sr`S 3 015 in IIIC Asslle GnUn . .
was Ihus not in accordance with Belgian law and in particular with the Section 127 of the Courts Act Furthermore, his case was not heard by an independent and impartial Iribunal as required by Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which had been violated . PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N By a decision of 3 December 1979, tne Commission decided to bring the application to the attention of the Belgian Government for observations on admissibJity in accordance wilh Rule 42 (2) Ibl of its rule of procedure The Government was requested to submit an account of the facts of the case within six weeks . In parbcular it was requested to provide explanations on the part played by Mr W . during the investigation of the charges agalnst the applicant . On 30 January 19801n view of the reasons put forward by the Government . the President of the Contmission extended the time limit to 19 March 1980 . On 26 March 1980 the Belgian Governnient sent its written observations on admissibility and the applicant sent his reply on 28 April 1980 By decision of 12 May 1980 Ihe Commission requested the Belgia n Government to submil the submission of Mr V ., Advocate General of the Court ol Cassation, on Ihe Brabant Court of Assizes judgment of 20 November 1978 within a period oflwo weeks . These conclusions were sent on 18 June 1980 .
SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIE S A . The Governmen t Exhaustion of the domestic remedie s The Government points out lirstly that the applicant never relied on the violallon of Article 6 of the Convention before the Court of Cassation . He merely alleged the violation ol Section 127 of ihe Courts Act . Itconceded, however, that the Advocate General of Ihe Court of Cassation considered that the argument based on a violation of Section 127 of the Courts Act was fell lounded and ainoumed at the same ume lo a violation of R :rticle 6, paragraph 1, ol the Convention so that the Court had in fact considered the possibility of a violation of this provision . The Government accordingly concedes that in the instant case the applicant has complied with the condition of exhausting domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention . Alleged violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Conventio n a . Dutirs of Mr W . as senior deputy public prosecutor The Government points out that at the time when the applicant's file was npennd in Ihe Brussels public prosecutor's department . Mr W . was performing the duties of the senior deputy public prosecutor He was in charge of B Section in the public prosecutor's office which dealt wilh files relating to offence s - 220 -
againsl Ihe person . Wilhin Ihis category spscial treatment was given to felonies, the investigation of which was deah with by a specialist officer independenl of the senior depuly public prosecutor in charge of Ihe section . The applicant's file was dealt in turn by two deputy public prosecutors, firstly Mrs C . and later Mr N . When an importanl problem arose each of those officers referred it directly to the public prosecutor who wished to be kept regularly informed of the case and, where appropriate, himself take the necessary decisions . As "head of section" . Mr . W . . checked the formal correctness of applications to the court ; 2 . might in addition discuss with the ofticer in charge of cases involving lelonies the 6ne to be followed in a particular case ; 3 . gave the same officer, if he asked for it . legal advice on problems which might arise Ã´n the classification ol the facts . However, the Government maintains that Mr W . did not exercice any of these three functions in the instant case since on 13 December 1977 he was sworn in as a judge of the Brussels Court of Appeal and it was not until the 12 May 1978 that the deputy public prosecutor, Mr N ., signed the application for an arrest warrant and not until the 16 June 1978 that the applicant was commited for trial before the Assize Court . Furthermore Ihe classification of the lacts was not such as to raise difficulties and the problems which niight have arisen and the final pleadings have not yet come lo lighl when Mr W . left the public prosecutor's department to join the Brussels Court of Appea l Finally the decision relating to proceedings against the applicant were not taken by the Brussels prosecuting department but by the Attorney General altached to the Brussels Court of Appeal in person on a report from the public prosecutor . b
Mr W.'s role in the present cas e
According to the Government . Mr W . was only involved in the present case on three occasion s 1 He passed the note of 4 February 1977, which the invesligaling judge P . ha d sent to the public prosecutor with the handwritten endorsement "for the attention of Mr W ." on to Mrs C . The answer to this note was sent by Mrs C . on 9 February 197 7 2 . He initialled the document in the file bearing the number 173 . This document was a letter of 13 January 1977 writlen in Dutch with Ihree appendices and sent by the public prosecutor at Courtrai to his colleague in Brussels to inform him of the applicant's extradition The letter was placed befor e
Mr W . in his capacity as head of Section B . He initialled it and sent it to Mrs C . who hersell arranged for it to be forwarded to the investigating judge wnh a note of 17 January 1977 3 Hr, initialled Ihe docuntenl in Ihe Ide bearing Ihe number 228 . This document is a note of 20 June 1977 signed by the Attorney General atlached to the Brussels Court of Appeal, whP .reby the laner sent to the Brussels public prosecutor the request to lake evidence on commission Irom the applicant's presumed Portuguese complice . Mr W initialled the document and sent it to Mr N who forwarderl it to the investlgating judge under a covering note of 22 June 1977 . On Ihe hasis of the ahove-menlioned information the Government conclurlr.s ihm Mr W . was involved on three occasions in the proceedings . nrlainsl the applir ant but that his role was merely that of a"letter box" . Accordingly, he never performed dvties in his capacity as an officer of the puhlic prosecutor's department in the applicant's case and there was no evidenrâ¢.r : to show that he was directly or indirectly involved in it . Since his . impartiality was arâ¢ cordingly in rio way affected the application was manifestly ill fonnded and should be declnred inadmissible by the Contniission under Anirâ¢.Ir. 27, pamgrnph 2, of Ihe Convention . B . The applican t Exhaustion of the domestic remedies The applicant concedes that he did not rely on Article 6 of the Conventlon before the Court ol Cassation . However, he had exhausted the doinestic rentedies within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention since he had alleged a violation of section 127 of the Courts Act which according to hini . a established the principle of Ihe independence and impartiality of the court and was thus a Belgian version of Article 6 of the Convention" . 2 . Alleged violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 o f the Convention a . Mr W's drnies as rhe Senior Deputy Puhlic Prosecuto r He states firslly that he is not calling Mr W .'s personal imparliality and independence into queslion . But an officer who had . the opportunity of familiarising himself wilh the file and, possibly, dealing with it when he was in the Public Prosecutor's Deparimenl and thus part of the prosecution, he might have formed an opiniÃ´n in accordance with his functions at the time, which were those of a prosecutor It was generally admitted that a member of the Public Prosecutor's Department who has formed the habit of looking at a file with Ihe eye o( a prosecutor forms quite another opinion on it from that formed by a jurlge exantining thÃ© same lile . . He disputes the Government's stalement that the file was dealt with by a specialist officer indapendent of the Senior Deputy Prosecutor Th e 222
Prosecuting Department in Belgium was organised on the authoritarian principle ; the Public Prosecutor's Department was one and indivisiblÃ© : Ihe Deputy Public Prosecutors exercised the functions of Ihe Public Prosecutor and the Senior Deputy Public Prosecutors exercised authority over the Deputy Public Prosecutors . Moreover he disputes the statement that Mr W . had exercised none of the three functions referred to by the Government on the ground that he was sworn in as judge of the Court ol Appeal on 13 December 1977 whereas the investigation was concluded on 12 May 1978 . In fact the investigation was virtually complete at the end 1977 The post important part of the investigation occurred during 1977 and they terminated formally in June 1978 because one of Ihe applicant's co-accused was Portuguese and was then in Portugal In fact it was only after overcoming great difficulties that the Belgian authorities managed to arrange for this Porluguese national to be brought to Belgium for 24 hours in order to reconstruct the crime . However, this aspect of the question was not decisive because the Courts Act did not require a legal officer to have taken part in the entire investigation in order to be barred from the presidency of the Court of Assize The Act states quite clearly that legal officers who have acted as prosecutors in a case, even during an extrentely short period, cannot preside over an Assize Cour t b . Mr W.'s role in rho Presenr cas e He pointed out that Mr W had been involved in his case as the Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor on three occasions : he had passed on the noie of 4 February 1977 which had been addressed to him by the investigating judge and initialled two documents on the file . Contrary to what was alleged by the Government the applicant maintained that Mr W .'s role was not purely passive When a legal officer signed a document he read it , similarly, when a file was sent to hini he read it . Moreover, the section 127 of the Courts Act should be given an extensive interpretation : when it referred to legal offir.ers who had acted as prosecutors it was referring to the function as such and nothing was said about the greater or lesser extent to which it was exercise d Furtherniore, it was important to take the applicant's position into consideration . It was of little importance lo know exactly what pan Mr W . had played, whal was important was that the person being tried should be convinced that he was being tried by an independent and impartial court . Finally the Advocate General, Mr V ., had defended Ihe argument that there had been a violation of section 127 of the Courts Act and Article 6 of the Convention in the instanl case before the Court of Cassation .
THE LA W 1 . The applicant complains ihat his case was not heard by an independent ancl impartial court because the President of the Court of Assize which convicted him had previously worked on his file as a member of the Public Prosecutor's Department . Furthermore, the Assize Court was not constituted in accordance wiih Belgian law , the applicant alleges a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of thÃ© Convention . This provision states inter alia that "in the determination . of any criminal charge against hiiri, everyone is entilled to a fair and public hearing wiihin a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law" .
2 The Commission notes that the respondent Government concedes that .the applicant has complied with the condition requiring the exhaustion of the doinestic remedies set out in Article 26 of thÃ© Convention . 3 . The presem application has two distinct aspects : lirstly whether the applicant's case has been heard by "an independent and impartial tribunal" and secondly whether ihis iribunal was "established by law" since these two guarantees are provided for in Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention . a
Was the Court of Assize an "independeni and impartial tribunal"
The applicant infers from the presence in the file of certain notes that the judge presiding over the Court of Appeal by which he was convicted previously dealt wlih ihe case in his capacity as a member of the Public Prosecutor's Departnient and could thus not be as impartial as is required by Article 6, paragraph 1 . Moreover, the opinion of the judges of the court appears to have been decisive in ihe verdict by which he was found guilty and the same judges were concerned, together with the jury, in fixing the sentenc e On the other hand the respondent Governriment maintains that the role played by ihe president, when a meniber of ihe Public Prosecutor's Department was r,onfinecl to the transmission of documents without any real panccipation in ihe work connected with the prosecution . -The Comniission finds that a dispute exists on certain questions of fact which iniplies iheneed lor niore extensive investigations . Moreover, it will in parlicular be necessary to define the exact scope of the words "impartial hibunal" in Article 6, paragraph 1 . Finally the question may arise to what extent ihe examination of the case by ihe Court of Cassation should be taken inlo consideration to establish whether, in fact, the guaranteesof imparunlity required by this Article have oi have not been satisfied in the applicam's case
b . Was the Court ol Asslze a uibunol "esiablished by law " .The applicant also alleges Ihal he was not Iried hy a tribunal "established by law" because the composition of the Court of Assize did not contply with Belgian law and in particular with ser,iion 127 of Ihe Courts Act . The Commission ohserves, however, that, in its judgement of 21 February 1979, the Court of Cassation did not find that this provision had been violate d However, it considers that the position as stated by the applicant, assuming it to be established, raises a problem in relation to the interpretation of the words "established by law" in Article 6 . paragraph 1 of the Convention, in particular as to whether they refer exclusively to statutory provisions of an institutional nawre lie . the legal basis of the existence of the r .orutl or also to organisational provisions lie . the organisation and working , of the courtl
The Comniission considers ihai in the present state of the file it cannot declare the application manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 27 . paragraph 2 of ihe Convention having regard to the investigation of the facts .ms of inlerpretation which remain to be Ihat are necessary and the pioblr solved, both of which mattr.rs involve a considernGon of the merits of the casP,
Now, therelore, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE withou t prejudice to the merits .
225 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/07/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 127
 l'article 6
 l'article 42
 l'article 6
 l'article 127
 l'article 127
 l'article 6
 l'article 26
 l'article 6
 l'article 27
 l'article 6
 l'article 26
 l'article 127
 l'article 6
 l'article 127
 l'article 127
 l'article 26
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 127
 l'article 6
 l'article 27