Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19741219-656674
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 19:43:08+00:00
Document Index: 269578391

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 250", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6566/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1974-12-19;6566.74 Parties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6566/74 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY X . c/REPUBLIQUE FEDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 19 December 1974 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 19 dÃ©cembre 1974 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e Articfe 6 paragraph 3, of the Convention Are these provisions applicable to pretrial proceedings ? l unresolvedl. Article 6, paragraph 3 bl, of the Convention Accused and defence counsel not ellowed to attend the heering by the investigating judge of witnesses abroad . The defence has still the possibility to examine the court files betore the trial. Articfe 6 paragraph 3 dl, of the Convention : Accused and defence counsel not allowed to-attend the hearing by the investigating judge of witnesses abroad . The defence has still the possibiliry toobtain the attendance of these witnesses at the trial. Article 6, paragrephe 3, de fa Convention : Ces dispositions s Ã©pp/iquent-el%s Ã la procÃ©dure antÃ©rieure au procÃ©s proprement dit ? IQuestion non rÃ©solue) . Article 6, paragraphe 3 bl, de la Convention : MÃ©me si l'inculpÃ© et son conseil n'ont pu assister Ã l'audition de tÃ©moins par un juge d'instruction Ã© l'Ã©tranger, la dÃ©fense conserve la possibilitÃ© d'examiner le dossier avant le procÃ©s . Article 6, paragraphe 3 dl, de la Convention : MÃªme si l'inculpÃ© et son conseil n'ont pu assister Ã l'audition de tÃ©moins par un juge d'instruction Ã /'Ã©tranger,- la dÃ©fense conserve la possibilitÃ© de les faire citer au procÃ©s . ( franÃ§ais : voirp .8b)
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1920, and at present detained in prison in Heidelberg . She is represented by Messrs B ., barristers in Mannheim . The applicant was arrested on . . . August 1973 and remanded in prison on suspicion of having committed murder in a concentration camp during the occupation of Poland by German troops . In February 1974 the applicant's lawyer asked the investigating judge, who intended to hear fu rt her witnesses in Poland, to allow the applicant or her representative to a ttend these hearings . This request was rejected on . . . February 1974 . The applicant's appeal (Beschwerde) was rejected by the Regional Court (Landgericht) in DÃ¼sseldorf on . . . March 1974 . The applicant alleges a violation of Art . 6 (3) (b) and Idl of the Convention . She is afraid that at least pa rt of the verbatim records on the hearing of witnesses in Poland will have to be read out as the witnesses are very old and some of them may no longer be alive when the trial begins . Fu rt hermore, she states that she cannot properly prepare her defence as she cannot put questions to the witnesses . THE LAW The applicant has complained that her defence counsel was not allowed to attend the hearing by the investigating judge of witnesses in Poland . It is true that Art . 6 (3) Ib1 and Idl of the Convention secures to everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to have the possibility of examining witnesses against him .
However, even assuming that Art . 6 (3) applies to pretrial proceedings, it has to be noted that, under Sec . 250 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (StPO), the Polish witnesses would be required to attend the trial in person and could then be examined as required by the applicant . At the present stage of the proceedings against the applicant there is nothing to show that any of the witnesses will not appear at the trial . The right to examine the witnesses or to have them examined is not then in the circumstances denied the applicant and, as her defence counsel has the possibility to examine the court files before the trial starts, she also has adequate time to prepare her defence . An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in the above Anicle . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E ( TRADUCTION ) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par la requÃ©rante, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : La requÃ©rante, citoyenne allemande, nÃ©e en 1920, est actuellement dÃ©tenue en prison Ã Heidelberg . Elle est reprÃ©sentÃ©es par MMes B ., avocats Ã Mannheim . ArrÃ©tÃ©e le . . . aoÃ¹t 1973, elle lut placÃ©e en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive comme soupÃ§onnÃ©e de meurtre dans un camp de concentration au cours de l'occupation de la Pologne par les armÃ©es allemandes . En fÃ©vrier 1974, le conseil de la requÃ©rante demanda au juge d'instruction, qui se proposait d'entendre de nouveaux tÃ©moins en Pologne, d'autoriser la requÃ©rate ou son reprÃ©sentant d' :,ssister Ã ces auditions . Cette demande fut rejetÃ©e le . . . fÃ©vrier 1974 . Un recours (Beschwerde) de la requÃ©rante fut rejetÃ©e par le tribunal rÃ©gional (Landgericht) de DÃ¼sseldorf le . . . mars 1974 . La requÃ©rante allÃ¨gue la viÃ´lation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 b) et d) de la Convention . Elle craint qu'une partie au moins du compte rendu littÃ©ral de l'audition de tÃ©moins en Pologne doive Ãªtre lue Ã l'audience car ces tÃ©moins sont trÃ¨s Ã©gÃ©s et certains d'entre eux pourraient n'Ã©tre plus en vie lorsque le procÃ©s s'ouvrira . En outre, elle dÃ©clare qu'elle ne peut prÃ©parer convenablement sa dÃ©fense sans pouvoir poser des questions aux tÃ©moins .
EN DROI T La requÃ©rante se plaint que son conseil n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã assister Ã l'audition de tÃ©moins par le juge d'instruction en Pologne . Il est vrai que l'article 6, paragraphe 3 b) et d), de la Convention garantit Ã toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction pÃ©nale le droit de disposer du temps et des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã© la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense et celui de pouvoir interroger ou faire interroger les tÃ©moins Ã© charge . Toutefois, mime Ã© supposer que l'article 6, paragraphe 3, s'applique Ã la procÃ©dure prÃ©paratoire, il faut relever qu'en application de l'article 250 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale IStPOI, les tÃ©moins polonais seraient citÃ©s Ã comparaitre en personne lors du procÃ¨s et pourraient donc Ã©tre interrogÃ©s comme le demande la requÃ©rante . En l'Ã©tat de la procÃ©dure dirigÃ©e contre celle-ci, rien ne permet de penser que tel de ces tÃ©moins ne comparaÃ®trait pas au procÃ©s . Il s'ensuit que le droit d'interroger ou de faire interroger les tÃ©moins n'est pas, e n
l'espÃ¨ce, refusÃ© Ã la requÃ©rante et que, comme il est loisible Ã son conseil de prendre connaissance du dossier avant le'dÃ©but du procÃ¨s, la requÃ©rante dispose du temps nÃ©cessaire Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense . L'examen de cette requÃªte, telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e, y compris un examen d'office, ne permet donc pas Ã la Commission de discerner l'apparence d'une violation des droits et libbertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention et, en particulier, dans les dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
_85_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 19/12/1974Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page