Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant was sentenced, by the incumbent assize court, to imprisonment for murder with dolus eventualis. Upon appeal on points of facts and law, the criminal chamber of the regional court of appeal dismissed on the merits the applicant’s request. Thereupon, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal on law through a petition of 5 November 2018 within the prescribed time-limit following the pronouncement of the verdict. On 22 November 2018, the criminal chamber served the reasoned decision on the lawyer, who then presented the additional petition setting out the grounds for appeal to the criminal chamber on 5 December 2018. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appellate request, stating that the petition setting out the grounds for appeal had not been submitted within the prescribed time-limit of seven days.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that his right of access to a court had been violated due to the dismissal of his appellate request for his failure to submit the grounds for appeal within the prescribed time-limit.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the criminal chamber served a notice recalling the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal but failed to give a notice regarding the seven-day time-limit for the submission of the petition setting out the grounds for appeal, which would start running on the service of a copy of the reasoned decision. In other words, the criminal chamber failed to carry out an overall examination of the appellate process and insufficiently informed the applicant as regards the submission of an additional petition setting out the grounds for appeal as from the date of service of the reasoned decision. In the same vein, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appellate request as regards alleged insufficient information in the decision, stating that the petition setting out the grounds for appeal had been submitted upon the expiry of the seven-day time-limit. In this sense, it has been observed that in dismissing the applicant’s appellate request without certain counter-balancing safeguards being employed, the Court of Cassation hindered the exercise of the right of access to a court and placed an excessive burden on the applicant. It has been accordingly concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court was disproportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right of access to a court that falls under the right to a fair trial.