Remli v. France
From DADEL
Case Summary
Remli v. France
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 16839/90
Judgment of 23 April 1996
The Applicant, Said André Remli, is currently in prison in Marseilles. A French national of Algerian origin, he alleged that he had not had a hearing by an impartial tribunal and that he had also suffered discrimination on the ground of racial origin, contrary to Article 6 paragraph 1, and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. He further alleged that he was denied an effective remedy before the national authority as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
Contents |
Facts
The Applicant and a fellow prisoner of Algerian nationality, Mr Boumédienne Merdji were tried by the Rhone Assize Court in April 1987 for killing a warder while attempting to escape from the prison. Before the hearing began one of the jurors made a remark, “What's more, I'm a racist, ” which had been overheard by a third person, Mrs M. On the second day of the trial counsel for the applicant filed submissions requesting the court to take formal note of the incident. The Court refused on the ground that statements had not been made in the presence of the judges of the Court. The Assize Court sentenced Mr Remli to life imprisonment and Mr Merdji to a twenty-year term. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, and Mr. Remli applied to the Commission in May 1990
Admissibility
The Government raised two challenges to the admissibility of this matter: 1) non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and 2) application out of time.
The Government maintained that Mr. Remli had neither asked for a transfer of trial on grounds of juror bias nor complained of discrimination on grounds of race or national origin in the national courts. The Government argued that if the Assize Court had been given notice of his objections, it could have replaced the offending juror easily. The Court replied that, by submitting the statement of Mrs. M to the Assize Court, and then appealing to the Court of Cassation, Mr. Remli did put the national courts in a position to give an effective remedy, which it did not do. However, the Court did grant the Government’s objection concerning Mr. Remli’s failure to raise the discrimination issue. He relied upon Article 14 for the first time before the Court, instead of raising it before the Court of Cassation. Thus, he did not exhaust his domestic remedies, and the claims based on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 are inadmissible.
The Court dismissed the objection that the application was out of time. The Government argued that the November 1989 Court of Cassation judgment was not a final national decision after which Mr. Remli had six months to appeal to the Court. Instead, it maintained that the clock ran from the April 1989 Assize decision. The Court held that filing an appeal with the Court of Cassation delays the six-month period and that the application was in time.
Merits
The Court finds that the national courts had sufficient information to resolve the juror bias in the trial against Mr. Remli. The national courts refused to take formal note of the juror’s biased statement even though they had an obligation to act. The Court also rejected the Government’s contention that the veracity of the sentiments behind the biased statement was not provable, and that the statement was likely a joke. The Court notes that real issue is whether the Applicant had an objectively justifiable fear of an impartial trial. Article 6 paragraph 1 obligates national courts to check whether it is an “impartial tribunal”, and the Assize Court failed to meet this obligation when it refused to take formal note of Mrs. M’s statements without any investigation or inquiry.
Decision
The Court dismissed the complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention because the Applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies. It also held there has been a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention.