CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mars 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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 28 March 2001 Asociación de víctimas de terrorismo v. Spain (dec.) - 54102/00 Decision 29.3.2001 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Impossibility for third party to obtain conviction in criminal proceedings: inadmissible The applicant is an association of victims and relatives of victims of terrorism. In 1995 and 1996 the political organisation Herri Batasuna published various communiqués and propaganda slogans from the armed terrorist organisation, ETA, in particular by assigning to ETA the advertising space which, as a lawful political party, it was entitled to use for its election campaigns. The public prosecutor filed a complaint and criminal proceedings were instituted against the leaders of Herri Batasuna . The applicant joined the proceedings as a “people’s prosecutor”. The Supreme Court sentenced the defendants to seven years’ imprisonment and fines for the offence of collaborating with an armed group. However, on an amparo appeal, the Constitutional Court held that the sentences were disproportionate and quashed the decision. The applicant asserted that by quashing the sentence without remitting the case to the Supreme Court so that a new sentence could be imposed, the Constitutional Court had left the offence unpunished. It argued that the victims had thus been deprived of their right to see the accused punished.   Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Although concerned by the Constitutional Court’s decision in its capacity as the “people’s prosecutor”, the applicant was not accused of a criminal offence since, on the contrary, it was the prosecuting party. However, the right of access to a court to obtain a decision on civil rights does not extend to the right to bring criminal proceedings to see a third party punished. Furthermore, by joining the proceedings as a “people’s prosecutor” to secure a conviction, the applicant had not sought to exercise any civil rights related to the offences of which the defendants were accused. It had taken part in the proceedings solely to secure their criminal conviction. While of special interest to the members of the association, the criminal proceedings therefore did not concern a dispute over the applicant’s civil rights and obligations or the merits of any criminal charge against it: 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