Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
June 1998
Twalib v. Greece - 24294/94
Judgment 9.6.1998
Article 6
Article 6-3-b
Adequate facilities
Adequate time
Lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence during criminal trial: no violation
Article 6-3-c
Free legal assistance
Absence of legal aid in cassation proceedings: 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.SCOPE OF THE CASE
Examination of complaints confined to Article 6 § 1 taken together with paragraph 3 (b) and (c) as applicant did not pursue other complaints before Court.
II.GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Government’s arguments concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies closely linked to applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 3 (c).
Conclusion: objection joined to merits (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (b) OF THE CONVENTION
Applicant assigned lawyer representing co-accused – lawyer afforded very limited time to consult case file and prepare defence despite seriousness of offence and complexity of case – in view of applicant’s submission that there was conflict of interest between him and co-accused, brevity of period of preparation can hardly be defended on basis of argument that lawyer familiar with case – therefore serious shortcomings in fairness of trial proceedings.
However, applicant represented by different lawyer before Court of Appeal challenged his conviction and sentence – Court of Appeal empowered to examine questions of fact and law and to quash impugned judgment – applicant’s lawyer did not contend on appeal that conviction was unsafe and that retrial should be ordered – no clear indication that appellate court could assume that there had been defect in first-instance proceedings without being alerted to matter.
Court of Appeal reached conclusion after hearing at which applicant and his counsel were present – applicant had opportunity to raise alleged deficiency at appeal hearing – nothing to suggest that fairness of appeal proceedings could be called into question.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to three).
IV.ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION
Reiteration of case-law on right to fair trial.
Court satisfied on facts that applicant was indigent and required legal aid in connection with cassation proceedings – furthermore, interests of justice required he be granted legal aid in view of seriousness of offence and severity of sentence as well as complexity of cassation procedure – applicant of foreign origin and unfamiliar with Greek language and legal system – Greek law however made no provision for grant of legal aid in cassation proceedings.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed; violation (unanimously).
V.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Pecuniary damage: Claim dismissed – no causal link between violation and damage claimed (unanimously).
B.Non-pecuniary damage: Compensation awarded on equitable basis (unanimously).
C.Costs and expenses: Applicant’s claim allowed in part (unanimously).
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (unanimously).
© 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