Information Note on the Court’s case-law 68
October 2004
Makhfi v. France - 59335/00
Judgment 19.10.2004 [Section II]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Equality of arms
Article 6-3
Rights of defence
Length of oral pleadings before a criminal court: violation
Facts: The applicant, who was accused of rape and theft as a member of a gang and had previous convictions for the second offence, appeared with another defendant before an Assize Court. On the first day of the proceedings, the hearing lasted five and a quarter hours. The following day, the proceedings began at 9.15 a.m. The hearing was suspended at 1 pm and resumed from 2.30 to 4.40 p.m., then continued from 5 to 8 pm and from 9 p.m. to 0.30 a.m. The proceedings resumed at 1 a.m. Counsel for the applicant applied for an adjournment until the following morning, referring to the rights of the defence. This request having been dismissed, the proceedings resumed until 4 a.m. After a break of 25 minutes, the final submissions, those of the defence, were made. Counsel for the applicant gave his address towards 5 a.m., by which time the sitting had lasted for 15 hours and 45 minutes. The defendants, including the applicant, were the last to speak. On that one day alone, the hearing lasted 17 hours and 15 minutes. At the end of the sitting, the jury found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. An appeal on points of law was unsuccessful.
Law: Article 6 § 3 and § 1, taken together – The Court considered it essential that not only those charged with an offence but also their counsel should be able to follow the proceedings, answer questions and make their submissions without suffering from excessive tiredness. Similarly, it was vital that judges and jurors should be in full control of their faculties of concentration and attention in order to follow the proceedings and to be able to give an informed judgment.
The conditions in which the applicant’s trial was held failed to meet the requirements of a fair trial, particularly with regard to respect for the rights of the defence and the principle of equality of arms.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court made awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy