issued by the Registrar of the Court
no. 169
01.03.2011
and Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine
judgments.
indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in
French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Faniel v. Belgium (application no. 11892/08)*
The applicant, Michel Faniel, is a Belgian national who was born in 1965 and lives in
Modave (Belgium). He was sentenced in his absence to six months’ imprisonment for
failing to present his daughter in accordance with the child-custody arrangements.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention
on Human Rights, he complained that he had been deprived of his right of access to a
court, as he had not been informed of the relevant formalities and time-limits in order to
lodge an appeal against that judgment.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,255 (costs
and expenses)
Lalas v. Lithuania (no. 13109/04)
The applicant, Marius Lalas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978. He is
currently in hiding. The case concerned Mr Lalas’ complaint that an undercover police
officer had entrapped him into supplying drugs in June 2002 and that subsequently he
had been unfairly convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He further
complained that certain essential evidence – notably the official document authorising
the undercover operation – had not been disclosed at his trial. He relied on Article 6 § 1
(right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just
satisfaction (non-pecuniary damage). The Court also recalled that, where an individual
had been convicted by a court in unfair proceedings, a retrial or reopening of the case
represented in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, these Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month
period following their delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
2 In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the
Convention.
