CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 novembre 1998

.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. 1 November-December 1998 Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 38644/97 Decision 24.11.1998 Article 7 Article 7-1 Criminal offence Disciplinary fine: inadmissible   Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Disciplinary fine: inadmissible   The applicant is a solicitor.   He went into business with JDS who was to provide legal clerking services. JDS had just come out of prison where he had been detained for fraudulent acts; the applicant discovered it some time after the business had been set up. The practice soon faced great losses caused by JDS who had signed cheques for enormous sums of money forging the applicant’s signature.   Another solicitor bought the practice from the applicant for £10,000 without being informed by the latter of JDS’s background. Disciplinary proceedings were eventually initiated against the applicant for serious professional misconduct.   A £10,000 fine was imposed on him by the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal. Inadmissible under Article 7: A fine which is punitive and deterrent rather than compensatory may suggest that the matter is “criminal” in nature if the penalty is sufficiently substantial. In the instant case, the fine is of such an amount that it can be regarded as having a punitive effect. However, it was imposed in respect of serious disciplinary offences and its level equalled the amount for which the applicant had sold the practice. In addition, there was neither an investigation into the applicant’s means, which is a pre-requisite of criminal fines in domestic proceedings, nor involvement of the police or the prosecuting authorities in these proceedings. Thus, given the essential disciplinary character of the charges, it cannot be found that the severity of the penalty rendered the charges “criminal” in nature:   incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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