CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mars 2012

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150 March 2012 Bingöl v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 18450/07 Decision 20.3.2012 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Refusal of operating licence owing to risk that it would be used to commit criminal offences: Article 6 not applicable   Facts – The applicant was refused an operating licence to run catering and sports facilities on the grounds that there was a serious danger that the licence would be used to commit criminal offences or to enjoy the proceeds of crime. That decision was based on the applicant’s previous convictions, inter alia , for the illegal employment of aliens, and his allegedly suspicious conduct. In his application to the European Court, the applicant alleged a violation of his right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed by Article 6 §   2 of the Convention. Law – Article 6 § 2: The applicant’s complaint was not that the wording of a judicial or other decision had reflected a finding of guilt on his part after a prosecution that did not result in a conviction, but that the refusal of the operating licence in and of itself had violated Article 6 §   2 in that it took his criminal antecedents into account. The Court and Commission had taken the view in previous cases that, for the purposes of conviction and sentencing, Article   6 did not prevent domestic courts from having regard to an existing criminal record. There was no reason of principle why Article 6 §   2 should prevent a competent authority from doing so when considering whether a person met standards of probity required for a particular purpose. Likewise, in its decision in McParland* , the Court had found that the refusal of a road service licence on the ground that the applicant’s criminal record was such that he could not be considered to be of “good repute” had not involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 §   1. Identical reasons applied to the instant case in which the applicant had been refused an operating licence on the ground that, in view of his criminal antecedents, he was deemed unfit to carry on his intended business. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). * McParland v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   47898/99, 30   November 1999.   © 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