CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59494/09 Robert BRIGGS-PRICE against the United Kingdom lodged on 21 October 2009     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s statement of facts, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTION     1.     Given that the confiscation proceedings were brought in the context of criminal proceedings, pursuant to section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, and that the applicant was not convicted of the offence of cannabis trafficking, was the judge’s decision in the confiscation proceedings compatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see, e.g., Minelli v.   Switzerland , 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62; Böhmer v. Germany , no.   37568/97, 3 October 2002; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   25424/09 [GC], 12 July 2013) ?