Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19820309-918680
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 10:13:33+00:00
Document Index: 284758892

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 3', 'arrêt ', "l'article 292", "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 292", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 6"]

DE CUBBER c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche DE CUBBER c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de P1-2 ; Non-violation de l'art. 3 ; Satisfaction équitable réservéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9186/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1982-03-09;9186.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : DE CUBBERDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9186/80 Albert DE CUBBER v/BELGIU M
Albe rt DE CUBBER c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 9 March 1982 on the admissibility of the application DECISiON du 9 mars 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention : Was the trial Court impartial when one of its judges has sat on the case in his capacity of investigating judge ? (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 26 of the Convention : The requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies has been cotnplied with if the applicant has raised in substance before highest competenr national authority the complaint he raises before the Commission . lt is therefore not necessaiv to examine whether the applicant disposed of other legal remedies to prevent Ihe breach of which he complains.
Article 6, paragraphe l, de la Convention : Le tribunal qui condamne est-il itnpartiul lorsqu'un de ses ntembres a connu de l'affaire comtne juge d'instntctimt ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : La condition de l'Ã©puisement des vnies de recours intentes est rentplie lorsque le requÃ©rant a fait valoir en substance devant la plus haute autoritÃ© nationale compÃ©tente le grief qu'il fortnule devant la Commission . /l n ' v a dÃ¨s lors pas lieu de rechercher si le requÃ©rant disposait d'autres voies de droit pour parer Ã la violation dont il se plaint .
(English : see p . 175)
En avril 1977, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© sur mandat de M . P., juge d'instruction Ã Oudenaarde . et inculpÃ© par lui de faux en Ã©criture. lointe Ã une aulre . J'affaire fut portÃ©e devant le tribunal correctionnel d'Oudenaarde qui, en juin 1979. condamna le requÃ©rant Ã cinq ans et un an - 172 -
d'crnprisunnernent. La premiÃ¨re de ces peines fut ramenÃ©e Ã trois ans en appel. Dans son pourvoi en cassation, le requÃ©rant a fait valoir notamrnern que M. P. avait siÃ©gÃ© comme juge au sein du tribuna l correctionne l qui !'avait coudamnÃ©. La Cour de Cassation rÃ©pondii que ni l'article 292 du code judiciaire ni aucune autre disposition lÃ©gale ne faisait interdiction Ã un juge de sirger an tribunal correctionnel dans une affaire dont il avait anlÃ©rieuremen( conrut en qualitÃ© de juge d'instruction .
EN DROIT (Extrail ) 4 . [Enfin,] le requÃ©rant fait valoir que sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendue par un tribunal impartial, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention dans la mesure oÃ¹ un des juges assesseurs au tribunal correctionnel qui l'a condamnÃ©, avait auparavant exercÃ© les fonctions de juge d'instruction dans la mÃ©nte affaire . Aux termes de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e de la Convention, toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial . Le Gouvernement soutient, en premier lieu, que le requÃ©rant n'aurait pas sur ce point, Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, dans la mesure oÃ¹, s'il avait des doutes au sujet de l'impartialitÃ© du juge, il aurait pu demander le dessaisissement de celui-ci (article 648 du code judiciaire) ou sa rÃ©cusation (article 827 du mÃªme code) . La Commission se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã cet Ã©gard Ã sa jurisprudence constante, selon laquelle la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes se trouve satisfaite si l'intÃ©ressÃ© a fait valoir, en substance, devant la plus haute autoritÃ© nationale compÃ©tente, le grief qu'il formule devant la Commission (voir inter alia requ@te NÂ° 7367/76, Guzzardi c/Italie, D .R . 8, pp . 185, 197) . Tel a bien Ã©tÃ© le cas en l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant ayant articulÃ© le grief susmentionnÃ© dans son pourvoi en cassation, invoquant mÃªme l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention et la Commission constate Ã cet Ã©gard que ce grief ne fut pas dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable . Dans ces circonstances, il importe peu de rechercher si le requÃ©rant aurait pu, avant le procÃ¨s, demander ou non le dessaisissement du juge ou'sa rÃ©cusation (voir mutatis mitandis, requÃªte NÂ° 7428/76, D .R . 13, pp . 36, 37) . En outre, la Commission relÃ¨ve que la Cour de cassation, s'agissant de l'article 292 du code judiciaire, qui concerne des principes essentiels de l'administration de la justice, admet que sa violation puisse Ãªtre invoquÃ©e pour la premiÃ¨re fois devant elle, Ã la diffÃ©rence des rÃ¨gles relatives Ã la rÃ©cusatio n
qui ne sont pas d'ordre public (Cass . 13 octobre 1975 . Pas . 1976 . I, 181 concl . sous Cass . 8 novembre 1979, Pas . 1980, 1 . 311) . La Commission conclut dont, au vu de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de, que le requÃ©rant a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . Quanl Ã la question de savoir s'il a Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© par un tribunal impartial au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention, le Gouvernement fait valoir que de la seule circonstance qu'un magistrat a connu de la cause, d'abord comme juge d'instruction et ultÃ©rieurement comme membre du tribunal correctionnel, on ne saurait dÃ©duire qu'il y a violation du droit du prÃ©venu Ã un tribunal impartial . Au contraire, .les renseignements multiples qu'il a pu rassembler au cours de son instruction, ses contacts avec le prÃ©venu, les avocats, les tÃ©moins, les experts, les membres de la police judiciaire, de la police communale ou de la gendarmerie lui donnent une connaissance de la cause qui reprÃ©sente un acquis considÃ©rable mis au service de la justiceÂ» . Le requÃ©rant quant Ã lui, soutient que le magistrat qui instruit ne saurait Ãªtre rÃ©ellement impartial et indÃ©pendant lorsqu'il juge . La Commission note en premier lieu qu'il n'est pas contestÃ© qu'en l'occurrence les trois instructions ouvertes contre le requÃ©rint furent confiÃ©es au juge d'instruction M . P . Celui-ci siÃ©gea par la suite en qualitÃ© d'assesseur au tribunal correctionnel de Oudenaarde qui a condamnÃ© le requÃ©rant . De l'avis de la Commission, l'affaire soulÃ¨ve essentiellement le problÃ¨me de savoir si le juge d'instruction, par le seul fait d'avoir prÃ©parÃ© l'affaire, a pu ou non se faire Ã l'avance une conviction personnelle sur la culpabilitÃ© de l'accusÃ© . Si oui, il n'est pas Ã exclure qu'un tribunal oÃ¹ siÃ¨ge un tel magistrat peut ne pas prÃ©senter les garanties d'impartialitÃ© exigÃ©es par l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention . Dans l'Ã©tat actuel du dossier, la Commission estime qu'elle n'est pas en mesure de dÃ©clarer le prÃ©sent grief ntanifestement mal fondÃ© et que ce dernier soulÃ¨ve des problÃ¨mes suffisamment complexes pour exiger un examen au fond .
Summary of the relevanr fact s In April 1977 the applicant was anested under a wanant issued by Mr P. . the investigating judge at Oudenaarde and was charged by the latter with forgery of documents . The case was joined to another case and brought before the Oudenaarde Regional Court which in June 1979 sentenced the applicant to terms of imprisonment ojfrve years and one year. The former sentence was reduced to three years on appeal. Irr his appeal to the Court of Cassation, the applicant claimed inter alia that Mr P. had sat as a judge on the Regional Court that convicted him . The Court of Cassation held that neither Article 292 of the Judicial Code nor any statutory provision prevented a judge from sitting on the Regional Court in a case he had previously dealt with as an investigating judge .
(TRANSIATION) THE LAW (Extract) 4.
[ Finally, ] the applicant claimed that he had not been heard by an impa rt ial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Convention in that one of the judges sitting on the Regional Cou rt that convicted him had previously carried out the functions of the investigating judge in the same case .
Under the abovementioned provision of the Convention, eve ry one is entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal . The Government claimed firstly that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with A rt icle 26 of the Convention, insofar as he had doubts about the impa rt iality of the judge and could have applied for the case to be withdrawn from that judge (Article 648 of the Judicial Code) or could have challenged him (A rticle 827 of that Code) . The Commission refers here to its established case-law in which it has held that domestic remedies have been exhausted where the person concerned has raised before the highest competent national authority in substance the complaint he raises before the Commission ( see inter alia Application No . 7367/76, Guzzardi v . Italy, D .R . 8, pp . 185, 197) . This is indeed what happened in this case, as the applicant had raised this complaint in his appeal to the Cou rt of Cassation, and had even invoked A rt icle 6(1) of the Convention, and the Commission notes that the complaint was not declared inadmissible . Under the circumstances it is not impo rt ant to determine whether the applicant could have applied before the trial for the case to be withdrawn from the judge or could have challenged him (see mutatis mutandis Application No . 7428/76, D .R . 13, pp . 36, 37) .
The Commission also notes that the Court of Cassation, with regard to Article 292 of the Judicial Code conceming the essential principles of the administration of justice, has held that the violation of that Article may be raised for the first time before it, unlike the rules relating to the challenge of a judge which are not a matter of public policy (Cass . 13 October 1975, Pas . 1976, 1 . 181 ; concl . under Cass . 8 November 1979, Ps . 1980, 1 . 311) . The Commission concludes accordingly that the applicant did exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention . As to whether he was tried by an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Convention, the Govemment claimed that a violation of the accused's right to an impartial tribunal cannot be inferred merely bectiuse a judge dealt with the case firstly as an investigating judge and subsequently as a member of the Regional Court . On the contrary, "the considerable information he obtained during his investigation, his contacts with the accused, lawyers, experts, members of the police forces ("la police judiciaire" . "la police communali' and "la gendarmerie") provided him with a knowledge of the case that contributed substantially to the administration of justice" . The applicant claimed that the judge who investigated the case cannot really be impartial and independent when reaching a decision on the merits . The Commission notes firstly that it is not disputed in this case that th e three investigations instituted against the applicant were assigned to investigating judge, Mr P . He subsequently sat as a member of the Regional Court of OudenÃ¢arde which convicted the applicant . - In the opinion of the Commission, the essential question in this case i s whether it is possible that the investigating judge, merely because he prepared the case, formed a personal belief in advance relating to the accused's guilt . If so the failure of a court on which such a judge sits to provide the guarantees of impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the Convention cannot be excluded . As the file stands at the moment, the Commission considers that it is unable to declare this complaint manifestly ill-founded and that it raises sufiiciently complex problems tti require a consideration of the merits .
- 176 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 09/03/1982Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page