CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 février 1995

.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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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. February 1995 Welch v. the United Kingdom - 17440/90 Judgment 9.2.1995 Article 7 Article 7-1 Heavier penalty Retroactivity Imposition of confiscation order retrospectively following conviction for drug offences: 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.   ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION The starting-point in any assessment of the existence of a penalty is whether the measure was imposed following conviction for a "criminal offence".   Under the 1986 Act the accused must have been convicted of one or more drug-related offence before an order could be made. The following elements provide a strong indication that the confiscation order amounted to a "penalty": the sweeping statutory assumption that all property passing through the offender's hands over a six-year period is the fruit of drug trafficking unless he can prove otherwise; the fact that the order is directed to the proceeds and is not limited to actual enrichment or profit; the discretion of the trial judge to have regard to culpability in fixing the amount of the order and the possibility of imprisonment in default of payment. Looking beyond appearances at the realities of the situation, the applicant faced more far‑reaching detriment as a result of the order than that to which he was exposed at the time of the commission of the offences. The order thus amounted to a penalty. Conclusion concerns only the retrospective application of the relevant legislation and does not call into question the powers of confiscation conferred on the courts as a weapon in the fight against the scourge of drug trafficking. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Costs and expenses: claim allowed (unanimously). B.   Damage: question not ready for decision - accordingly further procedure reserved (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