Sentences imposed by the administrative courts in spite of acquittals in criminal proceedings: violations of the Convention

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered its Chamber judgment in the case of Kapetanios and Others v. Greece (application nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) with regard to all three applications, and

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with regard to Mr Kapetanios’s application.

The case concerned the imposition of administrative fines on individuals accused of contraband who had been acquitted of a criminal offence.

The Court found in particular that the fact of ordering the three applicants to pay administrative fines, even though they had been acquitted by the criminal courts of the same offence in respect of the same set of facts, was contrary both to the right to the presumption of innocence and to the right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem).

The Court also held, with regard to Mr Kapetanios, that the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts, which lasted twenty-two years, had been excessive, and that at the relevant time there was no effective remedy available under domestic law in this connection.

Absence of assigned counsel: Court of Cassation failed to ensure practical and effective respect for defence rights

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Vamvakas v. Greece (no. 2) (application no. 2870/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair hearing / to be assisted by counsel) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the unexplained absence of the applicant’s assigned counsel from a Court of Cassation hearing in the criminal proceedings against him.

The Court found that the Court of Cassation had failed to ensure practical and effective respect for Mr Vamvakas’ defence rights. When faced with the manifest default of the assigned lawyer, it should have adjourned the proceedings to clarify the situation rather than dismiss the appeal on points of law as not maintained, especially as the decision was final.

The Court clarifies the scope of the right to effective legal assistance in criminal proceedings

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of A.T. v. Luxembourg (application no. 30460/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to assistance of counsel) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) on account of a failure to provide legal assistance during a police interview,

no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 as regards the lack of access to the case file prior to the applicant’s first appearance before the investigating judge, and

a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of communication between the applicant and his lawyer prior to his first appearance before the investigating judge.

The case concerned the failure to provide A.T. with effective legal assistance after he was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant, during both the police interview and his first appearance before the investigating judge.

The Court found in particular that, as regards the police interview, the statutory provisions then in force implicitly excluded the assistance of a lawyer for persons arrested under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Luxembourg. Since the domestic court had not remedied the consequences of that lack of assistance, by excluding from its reasoning the statements taken during that interview, the Court found on this point that there had been a violation of Article 6.

As regards the applicant’s first appearance before the investigating judge, the Court found that the lack of access to the file prior to that hearing had not constituted a violation of Article 6, as that provision did not guarantee unlimited access to the file prior to such an appearance. However, the Court held that the possibility for the applicant to consult his lawyer before that hearing was not sufficiently guaranteed by Luxembourg law. In so far as A.T. had not been able to converse with his lawyer before the hearing in question, the Court thus found a violation of Article 6.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Vinci Construction and GMT genie civil and services v. France (applications no. 63629/10 and 60567/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, for the home and for correspondence).

The case concerned inspections and seizures carried out by investigators from the Department for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention on the premises of two companies. The central question was the weighing up of interests relating, on the one hand, to the legitimate search for evidence of offences under competition law, and, on the other, respect for home, private life and correspondence, and particularly for the confidentiality of lawyer-client exchanges.

The Court considered that the safeguards provided by domestic law, regulating inspections and seizures conducted in the area of competition law, had not been applied in a practical and effective manner in this case, particularly since it was known that the documents seized contained correspondence between a lawyer and his client, which was subject to increased protection. The Court held that where a judge was called upon to examine reasoned allegations that specifically identified documents had been seized, although they were unrelated to the investigation or were covered by legal professional privilege, he or she was required to examine in detail the documents in question and to order their return where appropriate.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of S.C. Uzinexport S.A. v. Romania (application no. 43807/06) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the dismissal of a claim by a company seeking to obtain default interest for late payment in respect of a sum owed to it by the State.

The Court took the view that there was no reason for the High Court of Cassation and Justice to have found the company’s claim out of time, when faced with sufficiently clear case law and legal standards which contradicted such a finding. Observing that the role of a supreme court was to resolve any divergences in case-law that were inherent in any judicial system, it concluded that the High Court’s decision in the applicant’s case was arbitrary and incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Corbet and Others v. France (applications nos. 7494/11, 7493/11 and 7989/11) the European Court of Human Rights held:

by a majority, that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial / right to be presumed innocent) of the European Convention on Human Rights was inadmissible;

unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) on account of Mr Corbet’s detention on 24 July 2003.

The case concerned the applicants’ prosecution and conviction for misappropriating assets from the airline Air Liberté before it was put into compulsory liquidation.

The Court found that it had not been established that the use in criminal proceedings of statements made by the applicants before a parliamentary commission of inquiry had had any impact on their conviction or sentence.

The Court further held that Mr Corbet’s detention on 24 July 2003 had had no lawful basis and reiterated that at the time of the events there had been no provisions in French law governing detention from the expiry of a period in police custody until the detainee was brought before an investigating judge.

The Court finds against Turkey on account of excessive length of proceedings despite the introduction of a remedy in domestic law
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Behçet Taş v. Turkey (application no. 48888/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the explosion of an antipersonnel mine, and the fairness and length of the compensation proceedings instituted by him. The Court declared the complaints alleging a violation of the right to life (Article 2) and the right to a fair hearing (Article 6 § 1) inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
However, as regards the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings (Article 6 § 1), the Court applied the method it had laid down in the Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey pilot judgment of 20 March 2012 (no. 2420/07). Following that judgment, a new remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings had been introduced in Turkey. However, the Court had reserved the right to pursue the examination of similar complaints of which the Government had already been given notice in other cases. Carrying out an examination of this kind in the present case, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings lasting more than eight years