CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 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 26 January 2001 Inocêncio v. Portugal (dec.) - 43862/98 Decision 11.1.2001 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Pecuniary sanction for works carried out on a house without the required permit: Article 6 inapplicable The applicant was fined 500,000 Portuguese escudos by the district council for his place of residence for making alterations to his house without having first obtained the necessary permit, this being defined in a Legislative Decree as a summary offence. The applicant appealed against the decision imposing a fine. The fine was upheld and his appeal dismissed. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: With regard to the legal classification of the offence for which the applicant had been fined, the said offence was governed by the law relating to summary offences and not the criminal law. With regard to the nature of the offence, the requirement of a permit to carry out building works had to be construed as a regulation pertaining to the use of property, which was part of an overall planning policy. A penalty for failing to comply with that regulation could not be deemed to be a punitive or criminal measure of general application to all citizens. With regard to the nature and severity of the penalty, it could not be replaced by a custodial sentence in the event of failure to pay the fine. Although the amount of the fine was substantial, there was no threat of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Having regard to those factors, the fine could not be deemed to be a criminal penalty within the meaning of Article 6, which was thus inapplicable: 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