Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19820311-900080
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 15:53:47+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de P1-2 ; Non-violation de l'art. 3 ; Satisfaction équitable réservéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9000/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1982-03-11;9000.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 9000/80 X . v/SWITZERLAN D
X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 11 March 1982 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 11 mars 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraphe I of the Convention : Whether the jurv and the Court appraised the evidence correc(ly or incorrectly is a question which lies beyond the competence of the Commission . The latter's task is to establish whether the evidence produced for or against the accused was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair trial.
The conformitv of a trial with the requirements of article 6, paragraph 1 . niust be assessed on the basis of the trial as a whole . A particular incident may assume such importance as to constitute a decision factor in the general appraisal of the trial as a whole. Arrest of a witness in the course of a hearing . !n the present case, no appearance of a violation of the principle of a fair trial .
Article 6, paragraph 3(d) of Ihe Convention : The purpose of this provision is to place the defendant on an equal footing with the prosecution and the civil plaintiff with regard to the hearing of witnesses. It is not enough for an accused person who alleges a breach of this provision to prove that he was unable to question a certain witness ; he must also demonstrate that the hearing of the witness was necessary for ascertainirrg the truth and the failure to hear the witness prejudiced the rights of defence .
Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Que le jury et le tribunal aient bieu ou rnal apprÃ©ciÃ© les preuves est une question qui Ã©chappe Ã la Commission . La tÃ¢che de celle-ci est de s'assurer que les movens de preuve pour ou coutre l'accusÃ© ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s de maniÃ¨re Ã garantir un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . La corrformitÃ© d'un procÃ¨s pÃ©nal aux normes de l'article 6, paragraphe /, doit Ãªtre examinÃ©e sur la base de l'ensemble du procÃ¨s . Toutefois, un inciden t
peut revÃªtir une irnportance telle qu'il constitue un Ã©lÃ©ment dÃ©cisif pour !'apprÃ©ciation gÃ©nÃ©rale du procÃ¨s . Arrestation d'un tÃ©moin au cours des dÃ©bats . En l'espÃ¨ce, pas d'apparence de violation du principe du procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . Article 6, paragraphe 3, Iilt . d), de la Convention : Cette disposition a pour bnt de placer ('accusÃ© sur pied d'Ã©galitÃ© avec l'accusation et la partie civile en matiÃ¨re d'audition de tÃ©moins un accusÃ© qui allÃ¨gue la violation de cette dispositio n .IlnesufitpaÃ de montrer qu'il n'a pas pu interroger un eertain tÃ©moin Ã charge, il faut encore qu'il rendre vraisemblable que l'audition de ce tÃ©moin Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire Ã la manifestation de la vÃ©ritÃ© et que sa non-audition a portÃ© prÃ©judice Ã la dtfense.
(English : see p. 133 )
Le requÃ©rantâ¢ a Ã©tÃ© poursuivi devan( les tribunaux de GenÃ¨ve pour diverses infractions contmises au cours d'opÃ©rations portant sur des imnteubles sis en Espagne. L'audience de la cour d'assises, fixÃ©e d'abord au 22 novembre, fut renvovÃ©e Ã !a suite d'une tentative de suicide du requÃ©rant . Elle s'ouvrit le 1 3 dÃ©centbre suivant . Les parties au procÃ¨s avaient citÃ© plusieurs dizaines de tÃ©moins dorrt la plupart comparurent . Plusieurs d'entre eux, toutefois, venus notantment d'Espagne et d'Italie . repartirent Ã la suite du renvoi de l'audience aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© indemnisÃ©s . Parmi eux, trois tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge confiÃ¨rent leur dÃ©position Ã nn notaire de GenÃ¨ve avant de quitter cette ville le 13 dÃ©cembre . L'audition des tÃ©nrnins par !a cour d'assises dÃ©buta le 14 dÃ©cembre . Le 1 5 dÃ©cernbrÃ© fut entendu Me P., avocat, tÃ©moin Ã dÃ©charge venu d'Espagne, qui devait expliquer que les contrats nÃ©gociÃ©s par le requÃ©rant Ã©taient conformes au droit espagnol. Pendant l'audience, le reprÃ©sentant du MinistÃ¨re public ordonna l'arrestation irnmÃ©diate de Me P. comme co-auteur des contrats sur lesquels se fondait l'accusation . La dÃ©fense demanda alors le renvoi des dÃ©bats . Ayant entendu toutes les parties sur cÃ© point, le ju ry se retira seul et, aprÃ¨s avoir dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©, se dÃ©clara prÃ©t Ã poursuivre les dÃ©bats . L'audience continua par l'audition d'autres tÃ©moins . Le 20 dÃ©cembre, la cour d'assises condamna le requÃ©rant Ã dix ans de rÃ©c6tsion pour escroquerie par mÃ©tier . Le requÃ©rant se pourvut en cassation en se plaignant notamment de l'arrestation du tÃ©moin P . Ã l'audience. Ce pourvoi * Le requÃ©ram Ã©tait reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Me Domingo Goas, avocat Ã Madrid .
fui rejetÃ©, de ni Ãªme que le recours en nu(litÃ© et le recours de droit public que le requÃ©rant forma ultÃ©rieurement devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral . Par ai((eurs . le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral jugea que l'arrestarion du tÃ©moin P. avait violÃ© l'article 15, paragraphe 2, de la Convention d'extradition entre la Suisse e! !'Espagne .
EN DROIT I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en premier lieu, que sa cause n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã©quitablement, au motif que son tÃ©moin p ri ncipal, Me P ., fut arrÃªtÃ© en pleine audience de la cour d'assises . Il fait valoir qu'Ã partir de ce moment, il s'est trouvÃ© en position d'infÃ©rio ri tÃ© par rappo rt Ã l'accusation, ladite arrestation ayant influencÃ© le jury . Celui-ci, en effet, peu versÃ© en matiÃ¨re ju ridique, n'Ã©mettrait d'opinion qu'en se basant sur la conduite du MinistÃ¨re public et du PrÃ©sident de la cour . Or, l'attitude de ces derniers, acceptant que le tÃ©moin soit arrÃªtÃ© Ã l'audience pour connivence avec le requÃ©rant, aurait fait admettre aux jurÃ©s la culpabilitÃ© du requÃ©rant . Il allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention . 2 . La disposition prÃ©citÃ©e garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue par un t ri bunal indÃ©pendant et impartial qui dÃ©cidera ( . . .) du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale di rigÃ©e contre elle .
3 . Quant Ã l'influence Ã© ventuelle qu'aurait exercÃ©e sur les jurÃ©s l'arrestation de Me P ., la Commission tient Ã souligner qu'elle n'est pas appelÃ©e Ã se prononcer directement sur ce point, au regard de la Convention . II est en effet impossible de connaÃ®tre les motifs qui ont conduit le ju ry Ã rÃ©pondre comme il l'a fait aux questions relatives Ã la culpabilitÃ© du requÃ©rant . Que le jury et la cour aient bien ou mal apprÃ©ciÃ© les moyens de preuve, c'est lÃ une question qui Ã©chappe Ã la compÃ©tence de la Commission, telle que l'Ã©tablit la Convention . Sa tÃ¢che est d'Ã©tablir si les moyens de preuve produits pour ou contre l'accusÃ© ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s de maniÃ¨re Ã garantir un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable et de s'assurer que ce de rn ier a Ã©tÃ© conduit de faÃ§on Ã obtenir ce mÃªme rÃ©sultat (v . requÃªte NÂ° 343/57 Nielsen c/Danemark . rapport de la Commission, paragraphe 52) . 4 . La Commission se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã ce sujet Ã sa jurisprudence constante aux termes de laquelle la conformitÃ© d'un procÃ¨s aux normes fixÃ©es au paragraphe 1 de l'article 6 prÃ©citÃ©, doit Ãªtre examinÃ©e sur la base de l'ensemble du procÃ¨s et non pas Ã pa rt ir d'un aspect ou incident pa rt iculiers du procÃ¨s . Certes, un incident ou un aspect part iculier peuvent avoir Ã©tÃ© marquants ou avoir revÃªtu une impo rtance telle qu'ils constituent un Ã©lÃ©ment dÃ©cisif pour l'apprÃ©ciation gÃ©nÃ©rale de l'ensemble du procÃ¨s . Mais il est import ant de relever Ã cet Ã©gard que mÃªme en pareil cas, c'est sur la base de l'apprÃ©ciation du procÃ¨s dans so n
ensemble qu'il convient de dÃ©cider si la cause a Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã©quitablement ( voir requÃªte suscitÃ©e et Ã©galement requÃªte NÂ° 5574/72, D .R . 3, pp . 10 . 23) . 5 . Dans la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission constate qu'il resso rt du procÃ¨sverbal des dÃ©bats devant la cour d'assises, que le reprÃ©sentant du MinistÃ¨re public ordonna l'arrestation de Me P . pour complicitÃ© le 15 dÃ©cemb re . . . . En raison de cette arrestation le conseil du requÃ©rant demanda, le mÃªme jour, le renvoi des dÃ©bats . NÃ©anmoins, le ju ry - qui entendit toutes les parties avant de dÃ©libÃ©rer sur ce point - considÃ©ra que l'arrestation du tÃ©moin dÃ©montrait uniquement qu'il y avait eu complicitÃ© de sa part, mais ne prouvait pas qu'il y avait eu escroquerie de la pa rt des accusÃ©s . Il dÃ©clara qu'il ne se sentait aucunement influencÃ© par l'incident et que, par consÃ©quent, il Ã©tait prÃªt Ã continuer les dÃ©bats . Le requÃ©rant et son avocat retirÃ¨rent leur demande de renvoi et les dÃ©bats continuÃ¨rent jusqu'au 20 dÃ©cembre . . ., sans autres incidents . La question qui se pose est celle de savoir si l'arrestation du tÃ©moin Ã .6 dÃ©charge, ordonnÃ©e par l'accusation en pleine cour d'assises, a pu ou non mettre en danger la sÃ©rÃ©nitÃ© des dÃ©bats et porter , ainsi atteinte au droit du requÃ©rant Ã bÃ©nÃ©ficier d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable au sens de l'a rt icle 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention . La Commission ne se prononce pas sur le point de savoir si en l'occurrence ladite arrestation a pu produire, Ã elle seule, un tel effet . A cet Ã©gard, elle estime indispensable de procÃ©der Ã l'examen des autres g ri efs formulÃ©s par le re quÃ©rant qui sont Ã©galement en Ã©troite relation avec l'arrestation de Me P . Elle prendra ainsi en considÃ©ration le procÃ¨s dans son ensemble . 7 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que l'arrestation du tÃ©moin - outre l'influence qu'elle aurait exercÃ© sur le ju ry - a violÃ© le p ri ncipe de l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes, Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'il n'a pu interroger son tÃ©moin, et qu'elle a induit d'autres tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge Ã quitter la Suisse . Il allÃ¨gue Ã ce propos la violation de l'a rt icle 6, paragraphe 3 (d) de la Convention, qui dispose que â¢tout accusÃ© a droit Ã interroger ou faire interroger les tÃ©moins Ã charge et obtenir la convocation des tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge dans les mÃªmes conditions des tÃ©moins Ã charge â¢ . 8 . Cette disposition a pour but de placer, en matiÃ¨re d'audition de tÃ©moins, l'inculpÃ©, le prÃ©venu ou l'accusÃ© sur un pied d'Ã©galitÃ© avec l'accusation et la partie civile (voir requÃªte NÂ° 1134/61 . Rec . 7, pp . 120 . 122) . 9 . Quant Ã l'impossibilitÃ© allÃ©guÃ©e par le requÃ©rant d'interroger le tÃ©moin qu'il avait fait citer, la Commission relÃ¨ve que c'est lÃ un point contestÃ© par les parties . Le passage pertinent du procÃ¨s-verbal des dÃ©bats est ainsi rÃ©digÃ© : â¢Ã la fin de 1'interrogatoire dudit tÃ©moin, M . le Substitut de M . le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral a fait procÃ©der Ã l'arrestation de Me P. . . . . . Dans ses observations, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur prÃ©cisa que le 14 dÃ©cembre . . . le tÃ©moin avait Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© pendant 2 heu res et que l'avocat de la dÃ©fense avait pu lui ad resser
des questions . En outre, au dÃ©but de l'audience du 15 dÃ©cembre . . ., il avait encore Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© par toutes les parties . Le requÃ©rant quant Ã lui, soutient que, malgrÃ© le libellÃ© du procÃ¨s-verbal de l'audience, la dÃ©fense n'a pas eu la possibilitÃ© d'interroger son tÃ©moin . Il admet toutefois, qu'elle a pu . Ã un moment quelconque de l'interrogatoire, lui poser une question sporadique ou incidente . 10 . Avant d'examiner cette question de plus prÃ¨s . la Commission rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquefle l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (d) de la Convention n'accorde pas Ã l'accusÃ© un droit illimitÃ© pour obtenir la convocation de tÃ©nioins en justice (v . requÃªte nÂ° 8417/78, D .R . 16, pp . 2 00,203) . Les autoritÃ©s judiciaires internes jouissent ainsi d'une marge d'apprÃ©ciation leur permettant, sous rÃ©sene du respect de la Convention, de s'assurer que l'audition d'un tÃ©moin de la dÃ©fense est susceptible de contribuer Ã la manifestation de la vÃ©ritÃ© (v . requÃªte nÂ° 4428/70, Annuaire 15, pp . 264, 283) . Ces mÃªmes considÃ©rations s'appliquent d'ailleurs Ã©galement Ã toute personne accusÃ©e, qui ne possÃ¨de pas, en vertu de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e de la Convention . le droit illimitÃ© de poser des questions Ã des tÃ©moins . L'exercice de ce droit est subordonnÃ© Ã l'apprÃ©ciation du tribunal sur la pertinence des questions qui pourraient contribuer Ã la dÃ©couverte de la vÃ©ritÃ© et par consÃ©quent sur leur nÃ©cessitÃ© (ibidem, loc . cit .) . La Comniission est donc d'avis qu'il ne suffit pas Ã l'inculpÃ© qui allÃ¨gue Il . la violation de l'article 6 . paragraphe 3(d) de la Convention, de dÃ©montrer qu'il n'a pas pu interroger un certain tÃ©moin Ã dÃ©charge, il faut encore qu'il rendre vraisemblable que l'audition dudit tÃ©moin Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire Ã la dÃ©couverte de la vÃ©ritÃ© et que sa non-audition a causÃ© un prÃ©judice aux droits de la dÃ©fense .
12 . Dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, comme il a Ã©tÃ© dit plus haut, le requÃ©rant n'a pas dÃ©montrÃ© qu'il Ã©tait dans l'impossibilitÃ© d'interroger Me P . D'autre part, l'audition de celui-ci avait pour but d'expliquer que l'activitÃ© du requÃ©rant en Espagne Ã©tait conforme au droit de ce pays . Or . il ressort du dossier que l'avocat du requÃ©rant avait produit lors des dÃ©bats devant la cour d'assises . une attestation du PrÃ©sident de l'Ordre des avocats de SÃ©ville certifiant que les contrats conclus par la sociÃ©tÃ© du requÃ©rant Ã©taient conformes au droit civil espagnol . D'autre part, dans son recours contre le jugement de condamnation Ã la Cour de cassation cantonale, le mÃªme conseil a longuement exposÃ© (le ntÃ©ntoire de recours contient 34 pages) les raisons pour lesquelles lesdits contrats seraient conforntes au droit espagnol . La Cour de cassation du canton de GenÃ¨ve, quant Ã elle, rejeta le recours et bien qu'elle n'y soit pas tenue, prÃ©cisa dans son arrÃªt (Ã©galement longuement motivÃ© et contenant 41 pages) que les prÃ©cisions apportÃ©es sur le droit espagnol ne mettaient nullement en cause le mÃ©canisnte d'escroquerie des opÃ©rations du requÃ©rant . Il y a lieu de souligner enfin . que si le requÃ©rant estiniait les Ã©claircissements de Me P . indispensables, il aurait pu . dÃ¨s l'instruction, dentander son audition au juge - 131 -
d'instruction (conformÃ©ment aux articles 66, 67 . 68 et 117 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale du canton de GenÃ¨ve du 7 dÃ©cembre 1940, en vigueur au moment des faits . Le 3 avril 1978 est entrÃ©e en vigueur Ã GenÃ¨ve un nouveau code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale qui porte la date du 29 septembre 1977) . 11 a prÃ©fÃ©rÃ© toutefois que Me P . plaide sa cause en qualitÃ© d'avocat, ce qui fut d'ailleurs accordÃ© le . . . par le Conseil d'Etat de la RÃ©publique et canton de GenÃ¨ve . Par la suite, il l'a inclus dans la liste des tÃ©moins . 13 . La Commission tient toutefois Ã relever Ã cet Ã©gard que l'arrestation du tÃ©moin, dans les circonstances dÃ©crites ci-dessus et ordonnÃ©e par l'une des parties, a de quoi surprendre . surtout si l'on tient compte qu'elle Ã©tait contraire au droit suisse applicable . dont le reprÃ©sentant du MinistÃ¨re public Ã©tait sensÃ© connaitre la teneur . 14 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint enfin que son procÃ¨s n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©quitable . au motif que la cour d'assisÃ©s aurait dÃ» ordonner le renvoi de l'audience du fait que la plupart des tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge domiciliÃ©s Ã l'Ã©tranger n'avaient pas comparu . D'autre part, il fait valoir qu'un certain nombre de tÃ©moins, venus Ã GenÃ¨ve, sont repartis Ã la suite de l'arrestation de Me P . La Commission est d'avis que la cour d'assises, vu les motifs invoquÃ©s, n'a fait preuve d'aucun arbitraire en refusant de renvoyer l'audience comme le requÃ©rant le souhaitait . D'autre part . pour ce qui est du dÃ©part d'un certain nombre de tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge . provoquÃ© par l'arrestation du tÃ©moin susmentionnÃ©, la Commission adntet qu'en effet trois tÃ©moins de nationalitÃ© espagnole ont quittÃ© GenÃ¨ve . Toutefois, ils repartirent le 13 dÃ©cembre . . . ; et dÃ©posÃ¨rent leurs dÃ©clarations ce jour-lÃ devant un notaire genevois, alors que Me P . fut arrÃªtÃ© le 15 dÃ©cenibre . . . La relation de causalitÃ© invoquÃ©e par le requÃ©rant est donc inexistante . 15 . Vu ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de . et Ã supposer mÃªme que le requÃ©rant n'ait pas pu interroger ledit tÃ©moin, la Commission, aprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© la procÃ©dure dans son ensemble . considÃ¨re que l'arrestation de Me P . n'a pas portÃ© atteinte aux droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention . en particulier par l'article 6, paragraphes 1 et 3 (d) prÃ©citÃ©s . Il s'ensuit que la requ@te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens d e l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Par ces ntotifs, la Commissio n
DÃCLARE LA REQUETE IRRECEVABLE .
(TRANSLATION ) Summary of the facte The applicant' was prosecuted in the Geneva Courts for various offences committed during traruactions concerning real estate in Spain . The Assize Court hearing, fixed initially for 22 November, was deferred after a suicide attempt by the applicant. It opened on the following 13 Decem . The parties had called several dozen witnesses. the majorlty of whom did -ber appear. Several of them, however, especially those from Spain and Italy, departed after the deferral of the hearing, having had their expenses refunded . Among them, three witnesses for the defence gave their evidence to a Geneva public nota ry before leaving the city on 13 December. The hearing of the witnesses by the Court of Assize began on 14 December . On 15 December the Court heard as witness for the defence Mr P. . a barristerfrom Spain . who ezplained that the contracts negotiated by the applicant were in conformi ty with Spanish law. During the hearing, the representative of the public prosecutor's depa rt ment ordered the immediate anest of Mr P. as co-author of the contract on which the charge was based . The defence then asked for the deferral of the hearing. Having heard all the parties on this point, the ju ry withdrew and, after deliberating, announced that it was ready to continue the hearing. The trial continued with the hearing of other witnesses . On 20 December the Assize Cou rt sentenced the applicant to 10 years' imprisonmerrt for professional fraud. The applicant lodged an appeal on a point of law . complaining in particular of the arrest of witness P. during the hearing . The appeal was dismissed ; so were the appeal on a point of law and the public law appeal which the applicant subsequently filed before the Federal Court . However . the Federal Court ruled that the arrest of witness P . had violated Article 15, para . 2. of the extradition Convention between Switzerland and Spain .
THE LA W The applicant alleges, in the first instance, that his case was not given a 1. fair hearing as his main witness, Mr P ., was arrested during the hearing before the Assize Court . He submits that from then on he was in a position of inferiority in relation to the prosecution, as the aforementioned arrest had â¢ The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr Domingo Goas . a lawyer practising in Madrid .
influenced the jury . The jury, being unfamiliar with legal matters, could-he claims-form an opinion only on the basis of the behaviour of the public prosecutor and the presiding judge, whose attitudes, in agreeing to the witness being arrested during the hearing for connivance with the applicant, must have established the applicant's guilt in the minds of the jury . The applicant alleges an infringement of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention . 2 . The abovementioned provision guarantees everyone who is the subject of a crintinal charge the right to have his case heard by an independent and impartial tribunal . 3 . As regards the question of any influence the arrest of Mr P . might have had on the ju ry , the Commission points out that it is not required to deal directly with this point under the Convention, as it is impossible to asce rt ain why the ju ry replied as it did to the questions concerning the applicant's guilt . Whether the ju ry and the Cou rt appraised the evidence correctly or incorrectly is a question which lies beyond the competence of the Commission as established by the Convention . The Commission's task is to establish whether the evidence produced for or against the accused was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair trial and to satisfy itself that the trial was conducted on a manner calculated to achieve this result ( See ' Application No . 343/57, Nielsen v . Denmark, Repo rt of the Commission, para . 52) . 4 . In this connection the Commission refers to its consistently heldview that the conformity of a trial with the rules laid down in paragraph I of the abovementioned Article 6 should be examined in the light of the entire trial, not on the basis of one pa rt icular aspect of or incident in the t ri al . It is true that one pa rt icular aspect or incident could have been influential or assumed such import ance as to constitute a decisive factor in a general appraisal of the t ri al as a whole . But it is import ant to note in this regard that, even in such an event, it is on the basis of an appraisal of the whole trial that the question of whether the case was given a fair hearing should be decided ( see the abovementiÃ´ned application as well as Application No . 5574/72, D .R . 3, pp . 10, 23) . 5 . In the present case, the Commission observes that it is clear from the minutes of the Assize Court proceedings that the representative of the public prosecutor's depa rt ment ordered the arrest of Mr P . for aiding and abe tt ing on 15 December . . . Because of this arrest the applicant's counsel requested on the same day that the hea ri ng be dÃ©ferred . Even so, the jury-which had heard all the part ies before deliberating on this point-felt that the arrest of the witness showed simply that there had been aiding and abetting on his part but did not prove that their had been fraud on the : pa rt of the defendant . It said that it did not in any way feel influenced by the incident and that it was therefore ready to continue the hearing . The app W ant and his counsel withdrew their request for a postponement and : the hearing continued until 20 December . . . without any fu rt her incident .
6 . The question which arises is whether the arrest of the witness for the defence, ordered by the prosecution during the Assize Court proceedings, could have jeopardised the smooth conduct of the hearing and thus prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair trial as provided for in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention . The Commission refrains from expressing an opinion on whether, in the present case, the arrest did by itself produce such an effect . In this respect, it feels it essential to examine the applicant's other complaints, which are also closely linked to the arrest of Mr P . It will thus take the trial as a whole into consideration . 7 . The applicant complains that the arrest of the witness-apart from the influence it allegedly had on the jury-infringed the principle of equality of arms, as he was unable to question his witness, and that it caused other witnesses for the defence to leave Switzerland . In this connection he alleges a breach of Article 6, paragraph 3 (d), of the Convention, which states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall [have the right] to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him" . 8 . With regard to the hearing of witnesses, this provision is aimed at placing the defendant or accused on an equal footing with the prosecution and the civil plaintiff (see Application No . 1134/61, Collection 7, pp . 120, 122) . 9 . As for the applicant's alleged inability to question the witness he had called, the Commission notes that this is a point disputed by the parties . The relevant passage in the minutes of the hearing reads as follows : "After the questioning of the said witness, the deputy public prosecutor ordered the arrest of Mr P . . . . . . . In its observations the Respondent Government stated that on 14 December . . . the witness had been questioned for two hours and that counsel for the defence had been able to put questions to him . Moreover, at the beginning of the hearing on 15 December . . . the witness had again been questioned by all the parties . The applicant, for his part, maintains that, in spite of the wording of the minutes of the hearing, the defence did not have an opportunity to question his witness . He acknowledges, however, that the defence was able, front time to time in the questioning, to ask the witness a sporadic or incidental question . Before examining this point in grreater detail, the Commission refers t o .10 its consistently held view that Article 6, paragraph 3(d), of the Convention does not confer on the accused an absolute right to obtain the appearance of witnesses in court (see Application No . 8417/78, D .R . 16, pp . 200, 203) . Domestic judicial authorities thus have a margin of appreciation which allows them, subject to compliance with the Convention, to ensure that the hearing of a witness for the defence is likely to assist in ascertaining truth (see . Application No . 4428/70, Yearbook 15, pp . 264, 283) . The same considerations also
apply to any accused person, who under the abovementioned provision of the Convention does not possess an unlimited right to put questions to witnesses . The eiercise of this right is subject to the Court's appraisal of whether or not such questions are likely to assist in, and are thus necessary for, ascertaining the truth (ibidem, loc . cit .) . The Commission is therefore of the opinion that it is not enough for a n .1 accused person who alleges a breach of Article 6, paragraph 3 (d), of the Convention, to prove that he was unable to question a certain witness for the defence ; he ntust also demonstrate that the hearing of the witness was necessary for ascertaining the truth and that failure to hear the witness prejudiced the rights of defence .
12 . In the present instance, as already mentioned, the applicant has not demonstrated that he was unable to question Mr P . Moreover, the hearing,of the latter was designed to show that the applicant's activity in Spain was in keeping with the law of that country . However, it is clear from thc file that the applicant's counsel produced during the Assize Court hearing Ã¢n attestation by the President of the Bar association of Seville to the effect that the contracts entered into by the applicant's company were in keeping with Spanish civil law . Furthermore, in the appeal against the applicant's conviction to the cantonal Court of Cassation, the same counsel set out at length (the appeal memorial comprises 34-pages) the reasons why the contracts were consistent with Spanish law . The Court of Cassation of the Canton of Geneva, for its part, rejected the appeal and, although it was not required to do so, explained in its judgment (also at length - 41 pages) that the details given, on Spaniih law in no way affected the fraudulent nature of the applicant's transactions . It must be stressed, finally, that, if the applicant regarded Mr P .'s explanations as indispensable, he could have asked the examining judge to hear him at the committal stage (in accordance with Articles 66, 67, 68 and 117 of the Canton of Geneva's code of criminal procedure of 7 December 1940, in force at the relevant time . On 3 April 1978 a new code of criminal procedure dated 29 September 1977 came into force in Geneva) . However, he prefered Mr P . to plead his case as counsel, which was agreed to on . . . by the Council of State of the Republic and Canton of Geneva . Subsequently he included Mr P . in the list of witnesses . The Commission observes in this regard, however, that the arrest of th e .13 witness in the circumstances described above on the orders of one of the partiesis surprising, especially if it is remembered that it was contrary to the relevant Swiss law, with which the representative of the public prosecutor's department was supposed to be familiar . 14 . The applicant complains, finally, that his trial was not fair, on the ground that the Assize Court should have ordered a postponement of the hearing as the majority of the witnesses for the defence, domiciled abroad ,
had not appeared in court . He also submits that a number of witnesses who had come to Geneva left again after the arrest of Mr P . The Commission is of the opinion that the Assize Court, in the light of the grounds put forward, did not act arbitrarily in refusing to postpone the hearing as the applicant wished . Furthermore, as regards the departure of a number of witnesses for the defence as a result of the arrest of the abovementioned witness, the Commission acknowledges that three witnesses of Spanish nationality did leave Geneva . However, they departed on 13 December . . . and deposited their statements on the same day with a Geneva notary, whereas Mr P . was arrested on 15 December . . . The causal link invoked by the applicant does not therefore exist . 15 . In the light of the foregoing, even assuming that the applicant was unable to question the aforesaid witness, the Commission, after examining the procedure as a whole, considers that the arrest of Mr P . did not prejudice the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention's provisions, in pa rt icular the abovementioned Article 6, paragraphs I and 3 (d) . It follows that the application is manifestly illâ¢founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
.-137Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 11/03/1982Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 15
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27