CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. June 1995 Jamil v. France - 15917/89 Judgment 8.6.1995 Article 7 Article 7-1 Heavier penalty Retroactivity Term of imprisonment in default increased pursuant to a law enacted after offence was committed: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 A.   The applicable rule The seizure of the aircraft did not involve a transfer of ownership and the decision of the Court of Appeal to condemn the property as forfeited did not have the effect of depriving the applicant of ownership.   The release of the aircraft subject to payment of a sum of money was a measure taken in furtherance of a policy seeking to prevent carriers from bringing prohibited drugs into the United Kingdom.   It is therefore the second paragraph of Article 1 which is applicable. B.   Compliance with the requirements of the second paragraph The seizure of the aircraft and its release subject to payment were exceptional measures which were resorted to in order to bring about an improvement in the company's security procedures.   There had been a long series of alleged security lapses which had been brought to Air Canada's attention involving the illegal importation of drugs into the United Kingdom.   The measures taken, therefore, conform to the general interest in combating international drug trafficking. In addition, it would have been open to Air Canada to have instituted judicial review proceedings to challenge the failure of the Commissioners to provide reasons for the seizure of the aircraft.   In its AGOSI judgment the Court held that the scope of judicial review is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph.   There is no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Taking into account the large quantity of drugs found in the container, its street value, as well as the value of the aircraft, the requirement to pay £50,000 was not disproportionate to the aim of preventing the importation of prohibited drugs into the United Kingdom.   In the circumstances of the case a fair balance was achieved. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability 1.   Criminal charge No criminal charges had been brought and the criminal courts had not been involved.   The Court of Appeal, moreover, had specifically rejected the argument that section 141 was tantamount to a criminal provision. Accordingly, there had been no determination of a criminal charge. 2.   Civil rights and obligations It was not contested that the present case concerned a dispute relating to the applicant company's civil rights. B.   Compliance with Article 6 § 1 As regards the seizure, the Commissioners were required to take proceedings for forfeiture once the seizure had been challenged.   The requirement of access to court was thus satisfied in this respect. As regards the decision to require payment, it was open to the applicant to bring judicial review proceedings.   No such proceedings were brought.   The Court does not consider it appropriate to examine the matter in the abstract. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes