CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mars 1994

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s55CF1C79 { width:19.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; 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. March 1994 Ravnsborg v. Sweden - 14220/88 Judgment 23.3.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Criminal charge Absence of oral hearing in proceedings relating to imposition of fines on three occasions for improper statements in written pleadings to courts: Article 6 § 1 not applicable [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.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Number of allegations declared inadmissible by Commission reiterated by applicant before the Court, arguing that Commission's decision flawed on ground that independence and impartiality of one of its members open to doubt - no jurisdiction of the Court to examine allegations. Conclusion: case limited to complaint declared admissible (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION   Three alternative criteria for determining whether proceedings relating to the fines were "criminal" within the meaning of Article 6: A.   Legal classification of the offence under domestic law : point open to differing interpretations - not established that the provisions on sanctions against disturbance of good order of court proceedings belong to criminal law under domestic legal system. B.   Nature of the offence:   relevant provision in Code of Judicial Procedure applied to improper statements made orally or in writing to court by person attending or taking part in proceedings, but not to such statements made in different context by other persons - was for court sitting in case in which misconduct occurred to examine, of its own motion, whether it fell foul of rule in issue - circumstances therefore distinguishable from those in Weber and Demicoli cases - rules enabling a court to sanction disorderly conduct before it are a common feature of European legal systems - such rules and sanctions derive from indispensable power of a court to ensure proper and orderly functioning of its own proceedings - kind of measures more akin to exercise of disciplinary powers than to imposition of punishment for commission of criminal offence - open to States to bring more serious examples of misconduct within criminal law but that had not been shown to be the case with regard to fines in issue - proscribed conduct in question thus fell outside ambit of Article 6. C.   Nature and degree of severity of the penalty : possible amount of each fine (1,000 kronor) did not attain a level making sanction "criminal" - unlike ordinary fines, the kind at issue was not to be entered on police register - a decision to convert fines into term of imprisonment could only be taken by District Court in limited circumstances - it would then have been necessary to summon applicant for oral hearing in separate proceedings - accordingly, what was at stake for him was not sufficiently important to warrant classifying offences as "criminal". Conclusion : Article 6 not applicable and thus not violated (unanimously).   © 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