PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 47287/99) against the French Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a French national, Mrs Paule Perez (“the applicant”), on 5 October 1998.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P.-F. Divier, a lawyer practising in Paris. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R. Abraham, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that at the end of the investigation during which she was joined as a civil party, the procedure before the Court of Cassation had not been fair.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1). On 30 January 2003 it was declared admissible by a Chamber of that Section, composed of Mr C.L. Rozakis, President, Mr J.-P. Costa, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mr P. Lorenzen, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr E. Levits, Mr V. Zagrebelsky, judges, and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar. On 5 June 2003 a Chamber of that Section, composed of the following judges: Mr Rozakis, President, Mr Costa, Mrs Tulkens, Mr Lorenzen, Mr Levits, Mr. A. Kovler and Mr. Zagrebelsky, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72).

The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24.

The Grand Chamber decided that there was no need to hold a hearing on the merits of the case (Rule 59 § 3). The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits and on the question of the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention, which had been joined to the merits.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in La Plaine des Cafres (Réunion, France).

On 31 July 1995 she went to the gendarmerie in La Plaine des Cafres to file a complaint of having been assaulted by her two children. She said that her children had come to see her about a lawsuit between them concerning the non-payment of maintenance to which she was entitled because of her ill-health. While the applicant was in the front passenger seat of a motor car driven by her daughter, her son, who was in the back, had allegedly immobilised her and used a syringe to inject her twice with an unknown substance. She said she had quickly got out of the car and gone to hospital.

The applicant was found to have marks of injections. Moreover, after a witness had come forward, the gendarmes found a syringe which when tested was found to bear traces of diazepam and benzoic acid, both of which also form part of the chemical make-up of valium.

An investigation was begun on the grounds of assault with an offensive weapon resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days (reduced to less than that during the investigation).

During the investigation, the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.

On 14 March 1997 the Saint-Pierre investigating judge ruled that there was no case to answer on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that anyone had committed the offence. He found that the applicant's son, “who had allegedly given her the injection, had left the département to return to his dental practice abroad, in Gabon”, that “he had given his mother an injection of a substance which was medically harmless at that dosage...” and “that, in the absence of precise information as to his address, it did not [seem] practicable to interview [the son] given the difficulty of enforcing any request for evidence to be taken on oath in Gabon”. The decision was apparently served on the applicant on the same day by registered post with acknowledgment of receipt.

On 7 April 1997 the applicant went to the investigating judge's registry and, claiming that she had not received a copy of the decision, refused to sign the notice of appeal drafted by the registrar. She asserted that she had drafted a personal notice of appeal and lodged it at the registry on that same day. In her written observations to the court of appeal, the applicant requested, inter alia, that the investigating judge be made to stand down, that the investigation be resumed, that it be formally recorded that “her complaint [related to] premeditated assault with an offensive weapon resulting in thirty days' total unfitness for work and, given the results of the tests on the syringe, with criminal intent”, and that her children be “brought to the département by force in order to explain themselves”.

By a judgment of 8 July 1997, the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal of Saint-Denis-de-la-Réunion found that the applicant had appealed “by letter addressed to and received on 7 April 1997 by the investigating judge's registry”, and that she had gone to the registry on the same day and refused to sign the notice of appeal. The Indictment Division therefore ruled that her appeal was inadmissible on the grounds that she had missed the legal deadline and had failed to sign the notice of appeal.

On 11 July 1997 the applicant appealed on points of law. On 21 July 1997 she filed personal observations in which she submitted that the Court of Appeal had, in its judgment of 8 July 1997, disregarded certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure: firstly, “the judgment did not meet the essential conditions required for it to be lawful”, having been given by “judges who had not attended all the hearings in the case” and, secondly, the grounds set out in the impugned judgment relating to service of the decision that there was no case to answer were “insufficient” because they did not address the arguments she had put forward at the hearing. She alleged that there had been a breach of Articles 592, 575-6, 593 and 646 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a judgment of 21 April 1998, the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal in the following terms: “ ... Given the personal written observations filed; On the sole ground of appeal, based on a breach of Articles 485 and 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Whereas, firstly, the particulars of the judgment under appeal establish that it was given in the conditions prescribed by Article 485, third paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Whereas, secondly, the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the appeal of 7 April 1997 against the decision that there was no case to answer served on 14 March 1997 was out of time in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; ...”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e1
001-61629_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
47287/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e2
001-61629_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
French Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e3
001-61629_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e4
001-61629_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Paule Perez
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e5
001-61629_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
5 October 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e6
001-61629_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P.-F. Divier
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e7
001-61629_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Paris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e2
001-61629_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em2
French Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e8
001-61629_a11_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Abraham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e9
001-61629_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e10
001-61629_a11_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e11
001-61629_a11_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e12
001-61629_a11_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
30 January 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e13
001-61629_a11_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of that Section
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e14
001-61629_a11_em15
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr C.L. Rozakis
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e15
001-61629_a11_em16
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr J.-P. Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e16
001-61629_a11_em17
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs F. Tulkens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e17
001-61629_a11_em18
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr P. Lorenzen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e18
001-61629_a11_em19
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs N. Vajić
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e19
001-61629_a11_em20
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr E. Levits
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e20
001-61629_a11_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr V. Zagrebelsky
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e21
001-61629_a11_em22
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Nielsen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e22
001-61629_a11_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
5 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e13
001-61629_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of that Section
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e14
001-61629_a11_em25
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em15
Mr Rozakis
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e15
001-61629_a11_em26
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em16
Mr Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e16
001-61629_a11_em27
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em17
Mrs Tulkens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e17
001-61629_a11_em28
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em18
Mr Lorenzen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e19
001-61629_a11_em29
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em20
Mr Levits
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e23
001-61629_a11_em30
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr. A. Kovler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e20
001-61629_a11_em31
PERSON
QUASI
001-61629_a11_em21
Mr. Zagrebelsky
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e24
001-61629_a11_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
1933
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e25
001-61629_a11_em33
LOC
QUASI
La Plaine des Cafres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e26
001-61629_a11_em34
LOC
QUASI
Réunion
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61629_a11_e27
001-61629_a11_em35
LOC
NO_MASK
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e28
001-61629_a11_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
31 July 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61629_a11_e25
001-61629_a11_em37
LOC
QUASI
La Plaine des Cafres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e29
001-61629_a11_em38
DATETIME
NO_MASK
eight days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e30
001-61629_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61629_a11_e31
001-61629_a11_em40
LOC
QUASI
Saint-Pierre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e32
001-61629_a11_em41
LOC
QUASI
Gabon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e32
001-61629_a11_em42
LOC
QUASI
Gabon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e33
001-61629_a11_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
7 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e34
001-61629_a11_em44
DATETIME
NO_MASK
thirty days'
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e35
001-61629_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e36
001-61629_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal of Saint-Denis-de-la-Réunion
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e33
001-61629_a11_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
7 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e36
001-61629_a11_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em46
Indictment Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e37
001-61629_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e38
001-61629_a11_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
21 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e36
001-61629_a11_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61629_a11_em46
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e35
001-61629_a11_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e39
001-61629_a11_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
21 April 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e40
001-61629_a11_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e36
001-61629_a11_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e33
001-61629_a11_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
7 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61629_a11_e30
001-61629_a11_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 1997
Paule Perez
FRA
GRANDCHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Paule Perez