CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 décembre 2006

.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. 92 December 2006 Vos v. France - 10039/03 Decision 5.12.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Rebuttable presumption of guilt and refusal of additional investigations in respect of person charged with customs offences: inadmissible   The applicant is a Dutch lorry driver. He was arrested by customs officials who found 14,244 bottles of brandy and vodka in his lorry during an inspection. The applicant was unable to provide any documents attesting to the origin of the goods. He was summoned to appear before the criminal court and was sentenced following adversarial proceedings to two months’ imprisonment and a one-million franc customs fine. The applicant and the public prosecutor appealed against this judgment. The applicant said he had been unaware of the nature of the consignment, but admitted that the situation had been unclear when the lorry was loaded and that he had taken charge of the consignment in doubtful circumstances. He also claimed that the smuggling was part of a full-scale organised trafficking operation. Lastly, he requested that a confrontation be held and further investigation ordered. He argued that his trial at first instance had not been fair and that the appeal proceedings would also be unfair unless instructions were issued for evidence to be heard from witnesses on his behalf. In a judgment given following adversarial proceedings the court of appeal gave the applicant a suspended term of six months’ imprisonment and upheld the customs fine. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant.   Inadmissible under Article 6(2) – Presumptions of fact or law had to be confined within reasonable limits which took into account the importance of what was at stake and maintained the rights of the defence. Furthermore, the person in possession of contraband goods was not left entirely without a means of defence, given that the competent court could accord him the benefit of extenuating circumstances and had to acquit him if he succeeded in establishing a case of force majeure. The circumstances of the case had disclosed a certain “element of intent”, although this had not been necessary in order for the court to convict the applicant. The trial and appeal courts had been careful to avoid resorting automatically to the rebuttable presumption of liability on the part of the person accused of smuggling, laid down by the Customs Code; they had not applied the Customs Code in a way which conflicted with the presumption of innocence: manifestly ill-founded . Inadmissible under Article 6(3)(d) – A decision not to hear evidence from witnesses for the defence could infringe the rights of the defence. However, with regard to the applicant’s request for further investigation to be carried out, the witness examinations he requested would have had no bearing on the material facts of the offence, but would have been aimed at establishing that he had acted in good faith. The applicant had not demonstrated that taking evidence as he requested could have added newinformation relevant to his defence: 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