CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juin 2001

.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 31 June 2001 C.M. v. France (dec.) - 28078/95 Decision 26.6.2001 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Confiscation of applicant's vehicle used by third party to commit criminal offence, and restitution subject to payment: inadmissible Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Criminal proceedings against a third person in respect of an offence committed with the vehicle of the applicant, against whom no proceedings were brought: inadmissible The applicant’s son was arrested following a customs inspection while he was driving the applicant’s car. The customs officers found nineteen grams of heroin. The applicant’s son was found guilty of illegally importing and using drugs, and the Criminal Court ordered the customs authorities to confiscate the applicant’s car, which his son had used to import the drugs. That order was upheld on appeal. Neither of the courts’ decisions, issued in September 1994 and January 1995 respectively, was served on the applicant. In September 1994 the applicant requested the customs authorities to return his car and various personal effects. He repeated his request in October 1994. In November 1994 the Interregional Director of Customs informed him that he could recover his personal effects and that the car could be returned to him by means of a friendly settlement for the sum of FRF 3,000. The applicant complained that his car had been confiscated as a result of acts which had nothing to do with him in proceedings to which he had not been a party, and that the ensuing decisions had not been served on him. He also complained that no remedy had been available to enable him to assert his right of ownership. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The undisputed interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions amounted to a “control on the use of property”. Examination of domestic law revealed that the applicant, as the bona fide owner of the vehicle, had had the option – notwithstanding the impugned criminal proceedings – of applying to the District Court to recover his vehicle under Article 326 of the Customs Code. That possibility of judicial review satisfied the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this case, regard being had to the margin of appreciation permitted to States, a fair balance had been struck between the interests of the community and the fundamental rights of the individual: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 13: Since the Court had found that Article 326 of the Customs Code satisfied the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, an effective remedy had been available under domestic law enabling the applicant to assert his right of ownership. Inadmissible under Article 6: In accordance with its case-law in the Agosi and Air Canada cases, the Court held that, although the impugned measures had adversely affected the applicant’s property rights, they had not involved the determination of any “criminal charge” within the meaning of Article 6. The Court did not consider it necessary to examine of its own motion whether Article 6 was applicable under its “civil” head.   © 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