CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mars 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. 84 March 2006 Van Vondel v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 38258/03 Decision 23.3.2006 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Proceedings before a parliamentary commission of enquiry falling outside scope of Article   6: inadmissible Self-incrimination: obligation to testify in parliamentary enquiry procedure: inadmissible   In 1994 a parliamentary commission of inquiry on criminal investigation (“PEC”) was instituted in the Netherlands with a view, inter alia , to examining the justification and lawfulness of methods of criminal investigation. The applicant, who is a former criminal investigation officer, was heard twice as a witness during the public hearings held by the PEC. Under relevant domestic law, persons heard as a witness by such a parliamentary enquiry procedure do not have the right to remain silent, unless they are bound by a professional obligation of secrecy (and in that case, only as regards information conveyed to them in their professional capacity). However, a statement given by a witness before a PEC cannot be used in evidence against the person having given that statement or against any other person. In 1995, a fact-finding inquiry into the operation of the Regional Criminal Intelligence Service and its investigation methods was also started. The applicant was heard in the context of this enquiry with the undertaking that the statements he would give would not be used without his consent in any criminal investigation. Subsequent to these two inquiries, criminal proceedings were taken against the applicant on charges of having committed perjury before the PEC and of having sought to intimidate R., his former informer, when as the applicant knew or had serious reasons to assume that a statement from him would be sought in the context of the PEC inquiry. The applicant was convicted of both charges. He complains to the Court that the procedure before the PEC infringed Article   6 of the Convention by not guaranteeing persons heard as witnesses the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence. He also complains under Article   8 of the recording of tape-conversations he held with R. Inadmissible under Article   6: As to whether the proceedings before the PEC fell within the scope of this Article   in the sense of entailing a determination of the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations”, the Court recalled that certain obligations vis-à-vis the State belonged exclusively to the realm of public law, and were not covered by the concept of “civil rights and obligations” as construed under Article   6(1). In the instant case, the obligation to appear and give evidence before a parliamentary commission of inquiry – which was of crucial importance for the adequate functioning of a parliamentary control mechanism in a democratic society – was to be regarded as forming a part of normal civic duties. Consequently, the proceedings before the PEC in the instant case could not be regarded as falling within the scope of Article   6 under its civil head. As to whether these proceedings entailed a determination of a “criminal charge”, there were no reasons to hold that the inquiry conducted by the PEC in any way had amounted to a disguised form of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Hence, they fell outside the scope of Article   6 under its criminal head: incompatible ratione materiae . As regards the applicant’s complaint that the obligation to give information to the PEC had led to his subsequent prosecution and conviction in breach of Article   6 guarantees, the Court found that the applicant was convicted of having committed perjury for having given untruthful information to the PEC. This was not an example of self-incrimination before the PEC about an offence which he had previously committed; it was the offence itself. The present case was not therefore one concerned with the use of compulsorily obtained information in subsequent criminal proceedings. Consequently, there had been no infringement of the right to silence or privilege against self-incrimination in the criminal proceedings taken against the applicant: manifestly ill-founded . Communicated under Article   8.   © 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