CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 121 July 2009 Schneider v. France (dec.) - 49852/06 Decision 30.6.2009 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Condition requiring payment before fixed fine could be appealed against: inadmissible   In 2005 the applicant was twice ordered to pay fines for exceeding the speed limit, following automatic speed checks. The notices requesting her to pay the fines stated that unless payment was made within a specified period, proceedings would be instituted to seize her property, and that the sums due had to be deposited before any appeal could be lodged. The applicant initially addressed appeals to the public prosecutor’s office, refusing to deposit the sums due in advance. She claimed to have received no reply, an assertion contested by the Government. She eventually paid the fines – plus a late-payment surcharge – in mid-2006 and subsequently lodged further appeals, to which she received no reply. Inadmissible : The applicant complained of a violation of her right of access to a court because of the decisions of the public prosecutor’s office rejecting her appeals. This case is to be likened to that of Thomas v. France ((dec.), no. 14279/05, 29 April 2008), in which the Court found that, in the sphere of road traffic offences, which concerned the entire population and were the subject of frequent appeals, the aim pursued by the requirement to deposit the sums in question – namely to prevent dilatory or vexatious appeals and overloading of the Police Court’s list – was legitimate. In this case, however, the applicant alleged that her household income had been insufficient for her to deposit the requisite sums, but she failed to show that her income in 2005 had been inadequate for her to deposit EUR 550. In fact, she had paid the fines, plus a late-payment penalty and bailiff’s fees, which together amounted to an even larger sum: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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