CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 octobre 2013

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167 October 2013 S.C. IMH Suceava S.R.L. v. Romania - 24935/04 Judgment 29.10.2013 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Different decisions, without sufficient reasons, by two different courts as to admissibility of same piece of evidence: violation   Facts – The applicant, a commercial company, was the subject of a criminal complaint alleging that it had sold diesel fuel mixed with water. Two fuel samples were taken. The authority responsible for producing the expert report and the second opinion concluded that the fuel under examination did not correspond to any type of diesel conforming to the applicable standards. However, the reports noted that the manner in which the samples had been sealed meant that the containers of diesel fuel could be removed from their plastic bag without the seals being damaged. The applicant company was found by two separate authorities to have committed a minor offence. Relying mainly on the fact that the fuel samples had not been taken correctly, the applicant company applied to have the two penalties set aside. The domestic courts examining the applicant company’s complaint concerning the first notice of a minor offence held that they could not admit the expert reports in evidence because of the defective manner in which the samples had been taken. Accordingly, they held that the offence of which the applicant company was accused could not be made out and it could therefore not be held liable. In examining the complaint concerning the second notice of a minor offence, issued by the Economic Crimes Department, the same domestic courts, constituted differently, held that the expert report was reliable evidence of the offence of which the applicant company was accused. Before the European Court, the applicant company complained that the national courts had attached different evidential value to the same expert reports produced in two separate sets of proceedings. Law – Article 6 § 1: The main item of supporting evidence in the two sets of proceedings had been the expert reports and second opinions produced on the basis of samples found by the experts to have been stored in a defective manner. While reiterating that the admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation by national law and the national courts, the Court noted that in the present case the validity and reliability of the same item of evidence had been assessed differently by the domestic courts. This contradictory assessment had led to different legal conclusions as to the establishment of the facts, and more specifically the question of the applicant company’s possession of non-standard diesel fuel. Since this was the decisive piece of evidence for establishing the facts, an issue arose in terms of the fairness of the proceedings. Admittedly, in imposing the second penalty on the applicant company, the Economic Crimes Department had relied on other written documents besides the expert reports. Nevertheless, the domestic courts that had examined the applicant company’s complaint against the penalty had made no mention of those documents in their decisions. The applicant company had informed the courts dealing with the second set of proceedings of the existence of the previous judgment in which the validity of the evidence had been assessed differently. Although the court had referred to that judgment, it had not provided sufficient reasons for choosing to adopt a contrary position concerning the validity of the same item of evidence. Bearing in mind the decisive role of the evidence in question, a specific and express reply to that argument had been required from the courts. In the absence of such a reply, it was impossible to ascertain whether the courts had simply neglected to deal with the argument or if they had intended to dismiss it and, if so, for what reasons. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41: No claim made in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © 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