CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mars 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. March 1996 Leutscher v. the Netherlands - 17314/90 Judgment 26.3.1996 Article 6 Article 6-2 Charged with a criminal offence Presumption of innocence Request by a former accused for reimbursement of legal costs after discontinuation of criminal proceedings: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT The Court has no jurisdiction to revive complaints which the Commission had declared inadmissible. II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Court's Masson and Van   Zon v. the Netherlands judgment recalled   — no reason for Court to alter its conclusion in the instant case. Conclusion : Article 6   §   1 not applicable (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION Common ground that Article 6   §   2 does not confer on a person "charged with a criminal offence" a right to reimbursement of his legal costs where proceedings taken against him are discontinued — nor does the refusal to order such reimbursement to the former accused in itself amount to a penalty or a measure that can be equated with a penalty. Applicant had the benefit of appeal proceedings which were by way of a complete rehearing and in which the accused enjoyed the same rights as he did at first instance — to that extent it cannot be said that the applicant was not in a position to exercise the rights of the defence. In the exercise of the wide measure of discretion conferred upon it by domestic law, the Court of Appeal was entitled (both under the Convention and under Netherlands law) to take into account the suspicion which still weighed against the applicant, his conviction having been quashed on appeal only because the prosecution was found to have been time-barred when the case was brought to trial — the Court of Appeal was not called upon to reassess the applicant's guilt or express a view as to whether his conviction would have been upheld on appeal — nor can its decision be construed as a finding to that effect. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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