CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2003

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 58 November 2003 Lundkvist v. Sweden (dec.) - 48518/99 Decision 13.11.2003 [Section IV] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Insurance claim rejected in civil proceedings, despite acquittal in parallel criminal case: inadmissible The day after a row between the applicant and his wife in the couple's home, the house was ravaged by fire. The applicant was charged with arson. The District Court acquitted him despite finding there were reasons which suggested he had initiated the fire. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant then instituted civil proceedings against his insurance company, claiming compensation for the damage to his house. The District Court, sitting in a different composition than in the criminal case, and after having heard some new witnesses, found that insurance compensation was not to be paid, given that the circumstances pointing to an intentional setting of the fire by the applicant outweighed other possible causes. The Court of Appeal, also sitting with a different formation from that in the criminal case, upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant complained that the courts had disregarded his right to the presumption of innocence by rejecting his claim for insurance compensation. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 2: The civil proceedings in which the applicant's claim for insurance compensation was rejected did not “set aside” that acquittal, nor were they viewed as a new “criminal charge” against him. The compensation claim was the subject of a separate legal assessment based on criteria and evidentiary standards which were different from those which applied to the criminal case. The outcome of the criminal proceedings was not decisive for the compensation case. It followed that Article 6 § 2 was not applicable to the civil compensation proceedings: 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