 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Similarly, in Sutter v Switzerland,
an applicant was convicted of certain offences by
the District Court after public hearings and then brought an appeal to the Court of
Cassation. The appeal court deliberated in camera and dismissed the appeal, serving
the applicant with the operative provisions of the judgment immediately and with the
full text later.
(a)
The E Ct HR dismissed his complaints under Art 6(1) having found that :-
"The Court of Cassation did not rule on the merits of the case, as regards either the question
of guilt or the sanction imposed by the Divisional Court. It dismissed Mr. Sutter's appeal in a
judgment that was devoted solely to the interpretation of the legal provisions concerned. ......
In the particular circumstances of the case, oral argument during a public hearing before the
Court of Cassation would not have provided any further guarantee of the fundamental
principles underlying Article 6."
(b)
As to the duty to pronounce the judgment in public, the E Ct HR again held that
this had substantially been met by the Court of Cassation effectively confirming
and making final the lower court's publicly issued judgment.
Even where the appellate proceedings may involve a review of both fact and law, the
absence of a public hearing is not necessarily a violation of Art 6(1). In Helmers v
Sweden,
the E Ct HR put it in the following terms :-
"......even where a court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the case both as to facts and as to
law, the Court cannot find that Article 6 always requires a right to a public hearing
irrespective of the nature of the issues to be decided. The publicity requirement is certainly
one of the means whereby confidence in the courts is maintained. However, there are other
considerations, including the right to trial within a reasonable time and the related need for
expeditious handling of the courts' case-load, which must be taken into account in
determining the necessity of a public hearing at stages in the proceedings subsequent to the
trial at first instance."
Notes
Judgment 23 January 1984 (originally application no. 8209/78).
At §30.
At §34.
Application No. 22/1990/213/275, Judgment 26 September 1991, at §36.
|
 |
|