Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
September 1992
Pham Hoang v. France - 13191/87
Judgment 25.9.1992
Article 6
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Conviction on appeal for a customs offence and presumptions created by the Customs Code: no violation
Article 6-3-c
Free legal assistance
Refusal of official assignment of counsel for appeal on points of law: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 2
A.The government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies)
Court had jurisdiction to entertain it, notwithstanding that Commission had maintained the contrary.
Appeal on points of law: had been rendered ineffective by refusal of an official assignment of counsel.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).
B.Merits
Applicant not deprived of all means of defending himself: he could have tried to demonstrate that he had acted from necessity or as a result of unavoidable mistake - Court of Appeal had taken account of a cumulation of facts and had duly weighed the evidence before it, assessed it carefully and based its finding of guilt on it - manner in which it had applied the presumptions created in several provisions of Customs Code had not contravened the principles of a fair trial and of presumption of innocence.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 6 § 3 (C)
Refusal of official assignment of counsel in Court of Cassation: had apparently occurred during a transitional period, legislation having subsequently extended the authority of the Legal Aid Office at Court of Cassation to cover criminal proceedings - proceedings, however, clearly fraught with consequences for applicant, who had been acquitted at first instance but convicted on appeal - in addition, and above all, Mr Pham Hoang had intended to challenge in Court of Cassation the compatibility of several provisions of Customs Code with Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, but did not have the legal training essential to enable him to present and develop the appropriate arguments on such complex issues himself - the interests of justice therefore required a lawyer to be officially assigned to the case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 50
Claims relating to proceedings in Court of Appeal: did not fall to be considered.
Claims in respect of refusal of an official assignment of counsel in the Court of Cassation:
(a)pecuniary damage: rejected, as Court could not speculate as to outcome of appeal if legal assistance had been granted;
(b)non–pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated by finding of a violation;
(c)costs and expenses incurred in proceedings before Convention institutions: reimbursement assessed on equitable basis.
© 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