Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 85
April 2006
Sannino v. Italy - 30961/03
Judgment 27.4.2006 [Section III]
Article 6
Article 6-3-c
Defence through legal assistance
Failure of authorities to remedy manifest shortcomings on the part of officially appointed counsel: violation
Facts: At the beginning of the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant was represented in succession by two lawyers of his choosing, who were both given leave to summon a number of defence witnesses. The second lawyer chosen by the applicant subsequently ceased to act for his client and the court assigned counsel to represent him. Whilst the assigned counsel was aware of the date of the following hearing, neither he nor the applicant was informed of his appointment. Counsel failed to appear at the hearings and the court ordered his replacement by a different assigned counsel at each hearing. The witnesses on the applicant’s list were not called. The applicant attended the hearings except for the last two. Witnesses for the prosecution were examined. The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He appealed, but without success.
Law: Articles 6(1) and 6(3) – The lawyer assigned by the authorities to represent the applicant had been informed of the date of the next hearing, but not of his appointment. As a result of that omission the lawyer had been absent and this had given rise to the situation the applicant complained of – that he had been represented at each hearing by different assigned counsel, who did not have the slightest knowledge of the case. They had not requested an adjournment and had not called the defendant’s witnesses, whose appearance had been authorised. The applicant, who attended many of the hearings, admittedly failed to inform the authorities of the difficulties he was encountering in preparing his defence, did not make contact with his assigned counsel and did not enquire as to the outcome of the proceedings. However, the applicant’s conduct could not by itself have released the authorities from their obligation to ensure that the defendant was afforded effective representation. Given the patent shortcomings of the assigned counsel, it had been incumbent upon the authorities to intervene. But they had taken no steps to ensure that the accused was effectively represented and defended.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court considered unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.
Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage. The Court indicated that a retrial or the reopening of the case at the applicant’s request represented, in principle, an appropriate way of redressing the violation. It made an award for 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