Slimane-Kaïd v. France (no. 1)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14

January 2000

Slimane-Kaïd v. France (no. 1) - 29507/95

Judgment 25.1.2000 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Communication of judge rapporteur's report and draft judgment to the avocat général, but not to appellant prior to appeal hearing: violation

Facts: The applicant was the director of two public limited companies which entered into contractual relations with a third enterprise, the IVECO company. The latter made a complaint and the applicant was prosecuted, notably for fraud causing losses to IVECO. The Regional Criminal Court, while finding the applicant guilty of various offences, found IVECO’s application to join the proceedings as a civil party inadmissible  on the ground that the applicant was under receivership. The decision of inadmissibility was upheld on appeal but the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation overturned that part of the decision. The Court of Cassation referred the case back to a second court of appeal which found IVECO’s application admissible and ordered the applicant to pay IVECO over twenty million French francs. An appeal on points of law against that decision was rejected by the Criminal Division. The applicant complains that during the course of the second set of proceedings before the Court of Cassation, neither the judge rapporteur’s report nor the avocat général’s conclusions were communicated to him before the hearing.

Law: Article 6 § 1 -  In the Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd v. France (DR 1998-II) judgment, the Court found a violation of Article 6 on the basis of the same complaints - in that case regarding the first appeal on points of law and the criminal part of the proceedings. The Court held that communication of the judge rapporteur’s report and draft judgment to the avocat général only, in the light of the influence that the latter could have over the former, created an imbalance to the detriment of the applicants which was incompatible with the rule of fair trial. The Court moreover criticised the fact that the avocat général’s conclusions were not communicated to the applicants. The Court found that there appeared to be no development in the proceedings in the Criminal Division and therefore found no grounds to depart from the conclusions it had reached in the above-mentioned judgment.

Conclusion: violation (unanimous).

Article 41 - The applicant claimed reimbursement of the sum he was ordered to pay to the civil party. The Court noted that it was not its task to speculate as to what the outcome would have been of proceedings which complied with the provisions of Article 6. It also noted that a causal link between the alleged damage and a violation had not been established. As to the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, the Court’s finding of a violation in itself constituted just satisfaction.

© 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