Pelladoah v. Netherlands
![handle is hein.journals/hurcd5 and id is 260 raw text is: HUMAN RIGHTS CASE DIGEST
PELLADOAH v NETHERLANDS
By judgment delivered in Strasbourg on 22 September 1994 in the Pelladoah case, the European
Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the
European Convention on Human Rights in that the applicant had been tried and convicted in his
absence without his counsel, who had been present at the trial, having been given the opportunity to
conduct the defence.
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
Principal facts
The applicant is a Mauritian national, Mr Satyanund Pelladoah. On 27 December 1985 he was
arrested at Schipol Airport, Amsterdam, trying to enter the Netherlands with about twenty kilograms
of heroin and methaqualone (both substances being illegal drugs in the Netherlands) in his luggage.
He was detained on remand.
On 21 August 1986 the Haarlem Regional Court, having heard the applicant, convicted him of
unintentional importation of heroin and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. It ordered his
immediate release. Subsequently the applicant was expelled from the Netherlands.
Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the Regional Court.
At the hearing before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 10 February 1987 the applicant's lawyer
asked to be allowed to conduct the defence in the applicant's absence, the applicant being resident in
Mauritius and, therefore, unable to appear in person. The Court of Appeal refused on the ground
that there did not appear to be compelling reasons for the applicant's absence. On 24 February 1987
the Court of Appeal decided to allow the Procurator-General to add further documents to the case
file and resume the hearing at a later date.
On 20 November 1987 a differently constituted bench of the Court of Appeal resumed the hearing.
The applicant's lawyer asked to be allowed to represent the applicant. The Court of Appeal refused
on the grounds that it had not been stated, nor did it appear, that the applicant had authorised his
lawyer to represent him and that in any event it would first examine the principal charge of
importation of heroin, in respect of which representation of the suspect as requested was in any case
not allowed. The hearing continued on 22 January 1988. The applicant's lawyer produced a written
authorisation to represent the applicant and asked to be allowed to do so. The Court again refused,
stating that it would first examine the principal charge.
In a judgment of 5 February 1988 the Court of Apppeal quashed the judgment of the Regional Court,
convicted the applicant in absentia of intentional importation of heroin and sentenced him to 9 years'
imprisonment. The applicant's subsequent appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme
Court on 24 October 1989.
Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights
In his application of 17 April 1990 to the Commission Mr Satyanund Pelladoah alleged, relying on
Article 6(1) and (3)[c] of the Convention, that he had not had a fair trial in that his counsel had not
been heard by the Court of Appeal.
The Commission declared the application admissible on 11 January 1993. In its report of 4 May
1993 it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) taken in
conjunction with Article 6(3) [c].
The case was referred to the Court on 12 July 1993 by the Commission and on 30 August 1993 by
the Netherlands Government.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hurcd5&div=159&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Pelladoah v. Netherlands
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most