CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 30 octobre 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 26138/95                                I.L.                               against                         the Slovak Republic                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 30 October 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 17-50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 17-25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 26-50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 51-93) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        B.    Points at issue           (para. 52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 53-88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11             a.    As to the applicability of Article 6 of the                Convention                (paras. 53-76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11             b.    As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the                Convention                (paras. 77-87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14             CONCLUSION           (para. 88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        D.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention           (paras. 89-91). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16             CONCLUSION           (para. 91). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        E.    Recapitulation           (paras. 92-93). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   APPENDIX I:     PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 17   APPENDIX II:    FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 23                                               [ORIGINAL VERSION]   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicant is a Slovak citizen, born in 1953 and resident in Povazská Bystrica.   3.    The application is directed against the Slovak Republic.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. R. Fico.   4.    The case concerns proceedings before administrative authorities leading to the imposition of a fine under the Minor Offences Act.   The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 13 June 1994 and registered on 6 January 1995.   6.    On 19 October 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 8 January 1996. The applicant replied on 20 January, 12 and 22 March, 21 June and on 5 August 1996.   8.    On 15 October 1996 the case was transferred from the Second Chamber to the Plenary Commission, by decision of the latter.   On 21 October 1996 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.   It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   9.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 30 October 1996 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   The Government submitted observations on 18 December 1996, to which the applicant replied on 14 January 1997.   10.   On 21 October 1997 the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply Article 29 of the Convention.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             Mr    S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs   G.H. THUNE           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           MM    R. NICOLINI                A. ARABADJIEV     13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 30 October 1997 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   15.   The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the application are annexed hereto.   16.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   17.   At the relevant period the applicant lived in a block of flats in Dubnica nad Váhom which was owned by a co-operative.   In June 1992 the applicant requested, pursuant to newly adopted legislation, that the flat should be sold to him.   18.   Subsequently his neighbours and other individuals disturbed the applicant by noisy behaviour, mockery, offences and threats.   On several occasions the door and windows of his flat and his letter box were damaged.   The applicant considers that the purpose of these interferences was to dissuade him from buying the flat.   19.   On several occasions the applicant asked the police department in Dubnica nad Váhom to investigate the disturbances and to prosecute the responsible persons.   The police informed the applicant that the facts he had complained of could not be established.   As they found no evidence of an offence or a minor offence, the police closed the investigation.   On 15 April 1994 the police department in Dubnica nad Váhom gave notice of these facts to the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office (Obvodny úrad) pursuant to Section 63 of the Minor Offences Act (see "Relevant domestic law and practice" below).   20.   On 11 May 1994 the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office found that the applicant had committed a minor offence (priestupok) pursuant to Section 49 (1) (d) of the Minor Offences Act in that without justification he had accused family B. of causing a nuisance.   The decision was based on the evidence submitted by the police department in Dubnica nad Váhom and also on the facts which were established in the course of the proceedings before the Local Office.   21.   The applicant was fined 300 Slovak crowns and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings of 150 Slovak crowns.   The decision of the Local Office was signed by the head of its legal department.   22.   On 28 July 1994 the Povazská Bystrica District Office (Okresny úrad) dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the decision of the Local Office.   The applicant's case was examined by the legal department of the District Office and the decision was signed by the head of that department.   23.   On 16 August 1994 the applicant brought a complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd).   In his submissions of 5 October 1994 he alleged, inter alia, a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that there had been no fair and public hearing in his case, and that the administrative authorities dealing with the case lacked impartiality.   24.   On 24 November 1994 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court held, inter alia:   (Translation)        "A minor offence is characterised, in general, by a wrongful      breach of law or legal obligations in different spheres of public      administration which represents a minor danger for the society.      Because of its character, a minor offence is not subject to      examination by a court...   In accordance with the Minor Offences      Act, the examination of minor offences falls within the      competence of administrative authorities.   Pursuant to Section 83      of the Minor Offences Act, in conjunction with Section 244 et      seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, the lawfulness of      administrative organs' decisions on minor offences can be      reviewed by courts only in cases where a fine exceeding      2,000 Slovak crowns has been imposed, the exercise of a certain      activity has been prohibited for a period exceeding six months      or an object of a value exceeding 2,000 Slovak crowns has been      confiscated.   The aforesaid provision of the special act      governing minor offences is fully binding also on the      Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic."   (Original)        "Priestupok je vo vseobecnosti charakterizovany ako zavinené      porusenie práva, resp. právnych povinností na jednotlivych      úsekoch státnej správy s mensou spolocenskou nebezbecnostou.      Tento charakter priestupku ho vylucuje z uplatnovania      zodpovednosti pred súdom...   Podla zákona o priestupkoch      prejednávanie priestupkov patrí do pôsobnosti orgánov státnej      správy. Súdy preskúmavajú podla ustanovenia § 83 zákona o      priestupkoch v spojitosti s ustanoveniami § 244 a nasledujúcimi      Obcianskeho súdneho poriadku zákonnost rozhodnutia o priestupku      iba v prípade, ak bola ulozená pokuta vyssia ako 2 000 Sk, alebo      zákaz cinnosti na cas dlhsí ako sest mesiacov, alebo prepadnutie      alebo zhabanie veci, ktorej hodnota presahuje 2 000 Sk. Citované      ustanovenie osobitného zákona o priestupkoch platí v celom      rozsahu aj pre Ústavny súd SR."   25.   On 2 July 1997 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's request for review of its decision of 24 November 1994.   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice   Constitutional provisions   26.   Article 46 para. 2 of the Constitution guarantees to everybody who claims to have been denied his or her rights through a decision made by a public authority the right to turn to a court of law and have the legality of the decision reviewed, unless otherwise provided by law.   The review of decisions in matters of fundamental rights and freedoms may not be excluded from the jurisdiction of courts of law.   27.   Article 121 of the Constitution entitles the Government to grant a pardon in matters concerning minor offences.   Such a pardon was granted in 1990 and 1992.   28.   Pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decides on complaints about final decisions made by, inter alia, local government authorities and local self-governing bodies in cases concerning violations of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, unless the protection of such rights falls under the jurisdiction of another court.   Minor Offences Act   29.   The applicant was fined for a minor offence against civic propriety pursuant to the Minor Offences Act (Zákon o priestupkoch) of 28 August 1990 as in force at the relevant period.   30.   Section 1 of the Minor Offences Act defines its purpose as follows:   (Translation)        "Administrative authorities of the Slovak Republic and municipal      organs shall encourage the citizens to respect legal rules and      the rights of other citizens.   They shall ensure, in particular,      that citizens do not impede the conduct of the administration ...      and contravene public order and civic propriety."   (Original)        "Orgány státnej správy Slovenskej republiky a obce vedú obcanov      k tomu, aby dodrziavali zákony a ostatné právne predpisy a      respektovali práva spoluobcanov; dbajú najmä o to, aby obcania      nestazovali plnenie úloh státnej správy ... a nenarúsali verejny      poriadok a obcianske spolunazívanie."   31.   Section 2 (1) defines a minor offence under the Minor Offences Act as follows:   (Translation)        "A minor offence is a wrongful act which interferes with or      causes danger to the public interest and is expressly classified      as a minor offence in this Act or another law, unless such act      represents a separate administrative offence punishable under      special legal rules or a criminal offence."   (Original)        "Priestupkom je zavinené konanie, ktoré porusuje alebo ohrozuje      záujem spolocnosti a je za priestupok vyslovne oznacené v tomto      alebo inom zákone, ak nejde o iny správny delikt postihnutelny      podla osobitnych právnych predpisov, alebo o trestny cin."   32.   Section 11 of the Minor Offences Act entitles the competent authorities to impose "sanctions" (sankcie) on the perpetrators of minor offences.   It reads as follows:   (Translation)        "1.   The following sanctions may be imposed for a minor offence:      a) reprimand,      b) fine,      c) prohibition to exercise a certain activity,      d) confiscation of an object.        2.   A sanction can be imposed either separately or in combination      with another sanction; a reprimand cannot be combined with a      fine.        3.   It is permissible to decide not to impose a sanction if the      mere fact that the minor offence was examined is sufficient to      reform its perpetrator."   (Original)        "1. Za priestupok mozno ulozit tieto sankcie:      a) pokarhanie,      b) pokutu,      c) zákaz cinnosti,      d) prepadnutie veci.        2. Sankciu mozno ulozit samostatne alebo s inou sankciou;      pokarhanie nemozno ulozit spolu s pokutou.        3. Od ulozenia sankcie mozno v rozhodnutí o priestupku upustit,      ak k náprave páchatela postací samotné prejednanie priestupku."   33.   Section 12 (1) of the Minor Offences Act provides:   (Translation)        "When determining the type and amount of the sanction, the      seriousness of the minor offence and, in particular, the way and      the circumstances in which it was committed, its consequences,      the degree of guilt, the motive and the person of the perpetrator      including whether or not he or she has already been punished for      the same act in ... disciplinary proceedings should be taken into      account."   (Original)        "Pri urcení druhu sankcie a jej vymery sa prihliadne na závaznost      priestupku, najmä na spôsob jeho spáchania a na jeho následky,      na okolnosti, za ktorych bol spáchany, na mieru zavinenia, na      pohnútky a na osobu páchatela, ako aj na to, ci a akym spôsobom      bol za ten isty skutok postihnuty v ... disciplinárnom konaní."   34.   Section 49 of the Act governs minor offences against civic propriety.   Pursuant to Section 49 (1) (d) a minor offence is committed by a person who deliberately offends against civic propriety by threat of bodily harm, by causing minor bodily injury, by unjustifiedly accusing another person of a minor offence, by annoyances or other rude behaviour.   According to Section 49 (2) such a minor offence is punishable with a maximum fine of 3,000 Slovak crowns.   35.   Pursuant to Section 51 the proceedings concerning minor offences are governed, unless otherwise provided, by the Administrative Proceedings Act (Zákon o správnom konaní).   36.   Section 52 provides that the following administrative authorities are entitled to examine minor offences: a) local offices, b) police authorities if the minor offence was committed in breach of the generally binding legal rules relating to the security of road traffic, c) other organs of State administration if a special law so provides.   37.   Pursuant to Section 58 (b), cases involving minor offences against civic propriety are examined, if they are directed against the security of persons, by the police authorities which are subordinated to the Ministry of the   Interior.   38.   Section 59 (1) provides that minor offences are to be examined either on the basis of investigation carried out by the competent police authority or upon a notification submitted by an individual, organisation or authority.   39.   Under Section 63 (1) the police authority shall submit to the competent administrative organ a report on the outcome of its examination of a case.   Such a report shall comprise, inter alia, a description of the relevant facts and shall specify which minor offence they are alleged to constitute.   40.   Section 73 provides:   (Translation)        "1.   A citizen is accused of a minor offence as soon as the      administrative authority has taken the first procedural step      against him or her.   Such a person shall be considered innocent      until his or her guilt has been established by a final decision.        2.    A person accused of a minor offence has the right to comment      on all facts that are imputed to him or her as well as on the      evidence related to these facts, to present facts and evidence      in his or her defence, make submissions and have recourse to      remedies.   He or she cannot be forced to make statements or to      plead guilty."   (Original)        "1.   Obcan je obvineny z priestupku, len co správny orgán      vykonal voci nemu prvy procesny úkon. Na takého obcana sa hladí      ako na nevinného, kym jeho vina nebola vyslovená právoplatnym      rozhodnutím.        2.    Obvineny z priestupku má právo vyjadrit sa ku vsetkym      skutocnostiam, ktoré sa mu kladú za vinu a k dôkazom o nich,      uplatnovat skutocnosti a dôkazy na svoju obhajobu, podávat návrhy      a opravné prostriedky. K vypovedi ani k priznaniu ho nemozno      donucovat."   41.   Section 77, so far as relevant, provides:   (Translation)        "The operative part of a decision by which an accused of a minor      offence is found guilty shall comprise also the description of      the act including the place and time when the minor offence was      committed, the finding of guilt, the type and amount of the      sanction or, as the case may be, the decision not to impose a      sanction (Section 11 para. 3)..."   (Original)        "Vyrok rozhodnutia o priestupku, ktorym je obvineny z priestupku      uznany vinnym, musí obsahovat tiez popis skutku s oznacením      miesta a casu spáchania priestupku, vyslovenie viny, druh a vysku      sankcie, prípadne rozhodnutie o upustení od ulozenia sankcie      (§ 11 ods. 3)..."   42.   Pursuant to Section 83 (1) of the Minor Offences Act, decisions on minor offences by which a fine exceeding 2,000 Slovak crowns was imposed, the exercise of a certain activity was prohibited for a period exceeding six months or an object of a value exceeding 2,000 Slovak crowns was confiscated can be reviewed by the courts.   In such cases the provisions of Section 244 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure on administrative judiciary are applied.   Local State Administration Act   43.   Section 1 (1) of Act No. 472/1990 on the Organisation of Local State Administration (Zákon o organizácii miestnej státnej správy), as amended, empowers District Offices and Local Offices to carry out local State administration falling within the competence of the Slovak Republic.   The exercise of local administration by the aforesaid authorities shall be managed and controlled by the Government.   44.   Pursuant to Section 6 (1), the head of the Local Office shall be appointed and revoked by the head of the District Office.   45.   In accordance with Section 8 (1), the head of the District Office shall be appointed by the Government upon the proposal of the Ministry of the Interior.   46.   The officers of Local and District Offices are subordinated to the heads of these offices and their contract of employment is governed, as in the case of other salaried employees, by the provisions of the Labour Code.   Code of Civil Procedure   47.   Pursuant to Section 135 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts are bound, inter alia, by the decisions of the competent authorities that a criminal offence, a minor offence or another administrative offence punishable under special rules has been committed.   Criminal Code   48.   Section 3 (1) of the Criminal Code defines a criminal offence as an act which is dangerous to society and the characteristics of which are laid down in the Criminal Code.   However, pursuant to Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Code, an act whose dangerousness is negligible is not a criminal offence even if it has the characteristics of the latter.   49.   Pursuant to Section 3 (4) of the Criminal Code, the degree of dangerousness of an act is determined, in particular, by the importance of the protected interest which was affected by that act, by the circumstances and the way in which the act was committed and its consequences, by the person of its perpetrator, the degree of his or her guilt and by his or her motive.   50.   The Criminal Code refers to repressive measures for a criminal offence as "penalties" (tresty).   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   51.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints that his right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law was violated in the proceedings before the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office and the Povazská Bystrica District Office and that he had no effective remedy before a national authority in this respect.   B.    Points at issue   52.   The issues to be determined are the following:   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, and   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 13 of (Art. 13) the Convention.   C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention        a.    As to the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the           Convention   53.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant,   as follows:        "In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him,      everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   54.   The applicant alleges, in substance, that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is applicable to his case.   55.   The Government submit that the minor offence for which the applicant was fined has never fallen under criminal law in the Slovak legal system and that it cannot fall within the scope of the general criminal law as it lacks a serious character.   56.   The Government contend, with reference to Section 1 of the Minor Offences Act, that the purpose of the latter is to prevent wrongful acts of an administrative nature in the exercise of the public administration and in relations between citizens, and that it does not encourage punishment.   They therefore consider that the minor offence in question is not criminal in nature.   57.   Finally, the Government consider that the nature and degree of severity of the penalty incurred by the applicant do not warrant classifying the minor offence at issue as criminal, either.   They point out, in particular, that the maximum fine which can be imposed for the minor offence committed by the applicant amounts to 3,000 Slovak crowns, i.e. half of the then average monthly salary, that the imposition   of a sanction   under   the Minor   Offences Act is within the discretionary power of the administrative authority concerned, that sanctions for minor offences cannot be converted into a prison sentence and that they are not entered on a person's criminal record.   58.   The Commission recalls that in order to determine whether an offence qualifies as "criminal" for the purposes of the Convention, the first matter to be ascertained is whether or not the text defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of the respondent State, to the criminal law; next, the nature of the offence and, finally, the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risked incurring must be examined, having regard to the object and purpose of Article 6 (Art. 6), to the ordinary meaning of the terms of that Article and to the laws of the Contracting States (see Eur. Court HR, Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece judgment of 24 September 1997, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997, para. 32, with further reference).   59.   As to the first criterion, the Commission notes that in Section 2 (1) of the Minor Offences Act a distinction is expressly drawn between "minor offences" under the aforesaid Act, "other administrative offences" punishable under special legal rules and "criminal offences" which are punishable under criminal law.   60.   The Minor Offences Act refers to fines or other repressive measures for minor offences as "sanctions" (sankcie) whereas the Criminal Code classifies repressive measures for criminal offences as "penalties" (tresty).   61.   Furthermore, the treatment of minor offences is governed by the Administrative Proceedings Act and, in cases where judicial review is provided for, by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the administrative judiciary.   Proceedings relating to minor offences are, thus, distinct from criminal proceedings which are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.   In the Commission's view, the above facts indicate that Slovak law does not formally classify the minor offence for which the applicant was fined as criminal.   62.   However, the significance of the approach taken in domestic law is only relative.   The remaining two criteria, namely the nature of the offence in question and the nature and degree of severity of the penalty incurred by the person concerned, are factors of greater importance (see Eur. Court HR, Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 19, para. 52).   63.   In this respect, the Commission recalls that the aforesaid two criteria are alternative and not cumulative ones: for Article 6 (Art. 6) to apply by virtue of the words "criminal charge", it suffices that the offence in question should by its nature be "criminal" from the point of view of the Convention, or should have made the person concerned liable to a sanction which, in its nature and degree of severity, belongs in general to the "criminal" sphere.   This does not exclude that a cumulative approach may be adopted where the separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a "criminal charge" (see Eur. Court HR, the Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece judgment cited above, para. 33, with further references).   64.   As regards the nature of the offence in question, the Commission recalls that the applicant was fined for a minor offence against civic propriety under Section 49 (1) (d) of the Minor Offences Act on the ground that he had unjustifiedly accused his neighbours of disturbing him.   65.   Section 2 (1) of the Minor Offences Act defines a minor offence as a "wrongful act which interferes with or causes danger to the public interest and is expressly classified as a minor offence".   Thus, the rule of law infringed by the applicant is directed not against a given group possessing a special status, but its provisions potentially affect the whole population.   66.   The aim of the Minor Offences Act, as defined in Section 1, is to "encourage the citizens to respect legal rules and the rights of other citizens" and to "ensure, in particular, that citizens do not ... contravene public order and civic propriety".   67.   In order to ensure this aim, administrative authorities are entitled, under Section 11 (1) of the Minor Offences Act, to impose a reprimand or a fine, to prohibit the exercise of a certain activity or to confiscate an object from the perpetrators of minor offences.   The Commission is of the opinion that the aforesaid sanctions are not only deterrent but also, by their very nature and the effect they are liable to have on the persons affected by them, punitive.   In the Commission's view, the inherently punitive aspect of these sanctions can be deduced, a contrario, from para. 3 of Section 11 under which the administrative authorities may decide not to impose a sanction if the mere fact that the minor offence was examined is sufficient to reform its perpetrator.   68.   In addition, the Minor Offences Act contains several provisions which indicate that the minor offences it governs are of a criminal nature.   In particular, Section 73 provides for a certain number of procedural guarantees which are similar to those which are usually granted to persons accused of a criminal offence.   Thus an individual is considered as being accused of a minor offence as soon as the administrative authority undertakes the first procedural step against him or her and is considered innocent until his or her guilt has been established by a final decision; such a person has the right to comment on all facts that are imputed to him or her as well as on the evidence related to these facts, to present facts and evidence in his or her defence, make submissions, have recourse to remedies and cannot be forced to make statements or to plead guilty.   69.   Furthermore, under Section 77 of the Minor Offences Act, the operative part of a decision by which an accused of a minor offence is found guilty comprises, inter alia, the finding of guilt and the type and amount of the sanction.   70.   In determining the type and amount of the sanction the administrative authorities consider, under Section 12 (1) of the Minor Offences Act, the seriousness of the minor offence and, in particular, the way and the circumstances in which it was committed, its consequences, the degree of guilt, the motive and the person of the perpetrator, including whether or not he or she has already been punished for the same act in other proceedings.   The Commission recalls that similar criteria are set out in Section 3 (4) of the Criminal Code for the purpose of determining the degree of dangerousness of acts which are capable of constituting a criminal offence.   71.   The Commission further considers that the fact that Section 49 (1) (d) of the Minor Offences Act under which the applicant was fined classifies as minor offences against civic propriety "a threat of bodily harm, causing minor bodily injury or rude behaviour" also indicates the nature of the offence in question.   72.   Under Section 135 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure civil courts are bound, as in the case of offences under criminal law, by the decisions of administrative authorities that a minor offence was committed regardless of whether or not such a decision was reviewable by a court.   73.   Finally, the Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 121 of the Constitution, the Government is entitled to grant a pardon in matters relating to minor offences.   74.   The Commission is of the opinion that the general character of the rule of law infringed by the applicant, the purpose of the penalty which is both deterrent and punitive, and also the above mentioned specific features of the legislation governing minor offences and the proceedings relating thereto suffice to show that the offence in question was, in terms of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, criminal in nature.   As regards the respondent Government's argument that the minor offence in question lacked a serious character, the Commission recalls that it would be contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6 (Art. 6) if the States were allowed to remove from the scope of this Article a whole category of offences merely on the ground of regarding them as petty (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, the Öztürk v. Germany judgment cited above, p. 20, para. 53).   75.   In view of its above finding as to the criminal nature of the minor offence in question, the Commission does not consider it necessary to analyse also the seriousness of the sanction at stake.   76.   In conclusion, the Commission finds that the proceedings in question involved the determination of a "criminal charge". Accordingly, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is applicable in the present case.   b.    As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1   (Art. 6-1) of the      Convention   77.   The applicant submits that his right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal has not been respected.   78.   The Government consider that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable and make no comments on the question whether or not its guarantees were respected in the proceedings under consideration.   79.   The Commission recalls that, as regards the guarantees provided for in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, conferring the prosecution and punishment of minor offences on administrative authorities is not inconsistent with the Convention provided that the person concerned is enabled to take any decision thus made against him or her before a tribunal that does offer the guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) (see Eur. Court HR, the Öztürk v. Germany judgment cited above, pp. 21 and 22, para. 56, with further reference).   80.   The Commission further recalls that a body exercising judicial functions meets the requirements of a "tribunal" only if, inter alia, it is independent of the executive.   In determining whether a body can be regarded as "independent", account must be taken of the manner of appointment of its members, their terms of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question as to whether there is the appearance of independence.   Security against the removal of members of the tribunal by the executive during their term of office is a necessary corollary of their independence (see Eur. Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, para. 55; Bryan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, p. 15, para. 37, with further reference).   81.   The Commission notes that the applicant's case was first examined by the Dubnica nad Váhom police department.   In fact, Section 58 (b) entitles police authorities to examine cases involving minor offences against civic propriety directed against the security of persons.   82.   The police department concluded that the facts of which the applicant had accused his neighbours could not be established and submitted a report on the applicant's case to the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office.   Section 63 (1) of the Minor Offences Act provides that such a report shall specify which minor offence the facts of a particular case are alleged to constitute.   83.   The Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office examined the applicant's case and established that the applicant had committed a minor offence against civic propriety pursuant to Section 49 (1) (d) of the Minor Offences Act.   The Local Office's decision of 11 May 1994 was signed by the head of the latter's legal department.   The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the legal department of the Povazská Bystrica District Office and the relevant decision was signed by the head of that department.   84.   Thus, the proceedings against the applicant were initiated by the police which is an authority subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior.   The applicant's case was subsequently examined by the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office and the Povazská Bystrica District Office, i.e. administrative authorities responsible for State administration and furtherance of the Government's policies.   The respondent Government do not suggest that the aforesaid authorities acted in the applicant's case as "tribunals" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   85.   The Commission notes that the head of the Local Office is appointed by the head of the competent District Office and the latter by the Government upon the proposal of the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant's case was dealt with by the legal departments of both the Local Office and the District Office, i.e. salaried staff subordinated to the heads of those authorities.   Slovak law does not provide for a specific term of office of the employees of such authorities and their contract of employment is governed, as in the case of other employees, by the Labour Code.   86.   In these circumstances the Commission considers that the officers deciding on the applicant's case lacked the requisite appearance of independence from the executive.   Accordingly, the proceedings before the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office and the Povazská Bystrica District Office did not comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   87.   Since under Slovak law the decisions of the aforesaid authorities could not be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), and the Constitutional Court was not able to review the applicant's case at all, the Commission finds that the applicant's right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law has not been respected.        CONCLUSION   88.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   D.    As regards Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention   89.   The applicant further complains that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   He alleges a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention which provides as follows:        "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a      national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been      committed by persons acting in an official capacity."   90.   The Commission refers to the constant case-law of the Convention organs according to which in cases of the present kind Article 6 (A