CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 mars 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   182 29.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT ACHOUR v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Achour v. France (application no. 67335/01).   The Court held by 16 votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   Couider Achour is a 42-year-old Algerian national who is currently detained in Lyons (France).   On 16 October 1984 Lyons Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. He finished serving his sentence on 12   July 1986.   On 1 March 1994 the provisions of Article 132-9 of the new Criminal Code, changing the law concerning recidivism, came into force. Those provisions stipulated that where a person who had already been convicted with final effect of a serious crime or offence punishable by ten years’ imprisonment committed, within ten years of the expiry of the previous sentence or of the time allowed for its enforcement, a further offence carrying a similar sentence, the maximum sentence and fine imposable should be doubled.   On 14 April 1997 Lyons Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of a drug offence following the discovery in his garage of two bags containing some 57 kilograms of cannabis. It sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment and ordered his exclusion from French territory for ten years.   On 25 November 1997 Lyons Court of Appeal, applying Article 132-9, increased the applicant’s sentence to 12 years.   The applicant appealed on points of law, complaining about the retrospective application of the provisions of the new, more severe law. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal.         2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 April 2000. It was declared partly admissible after a Chamber hearing on 11 March 2004.   In a judgment of 10 November 2004 (see press release no. 558 from 2004) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 7. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request under Article 43 and on 30 March 2005 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.   A Grand Chamber hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19   October 2005.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Josep Casadevall (Andorran) András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Dragoljub Popović (citizen of Serbia and Montenegro), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint The applicant complained about the application of the new law on recidivism which led to an increase in his sentence. He relies on Article 7.   Decision of the Court   Article 7 The Court considered that States were free to determine their own criminal policy and to amend it where appropriate by increasing the penalties applicable for criminal offences. Accordingly, a State’s choice of criminal-justice system was outside the scope of the Court’s supervision, provided that it did not contravene the principles set out in the Convention. The Court had to ascertain, in particular, whether the relevant French statute law and case-law had been accessible and foreseeable as to its effect at the material time.   The Court first observed that Article 132-9 of the new Criminal Code provided that the maximum prison sentence and fine that could be imposed were to be doubled in the event of recidivism and that the applicable period was no longer five years, as prescribed by the former legislation, but ten years from the expiry of the previous sentence or of the time allowed for its enforcement. As the new statutory rules had come into force on 1 March 1994, they had been applicable when the applicant had committed fresh offences in 1995, so that he had been a recidivist in legal terms as a result of those offences.   The Court further noted that the Court of Cassation had taken a clear and consistent position since the late nineteenth century to the effect that where a law introduced new rules on recidivism, for them to apply immediately it was sufficient for the second offence to have been committed after the law’s entry into force.   Accordingly, there was no doubt that the applicant could have foreseen that by committing a further offence before the statutory ten-year period expired on 13 July 1996, he ran the risk of being convicted as a recidivist and of receiving a prison sentence and/or a fine that was liable to be doubled. He was thus able to foresee the legal consequences of his actions and to adapt his conduct.   In addition, the Court pointed out that, contrary to what the applicant maintained, the expiry of the relevant period for the purposes of recidivism, as provided for at the time of his first offence, had not given him the right to have that offence disregarded and that no issue arose as to the retrospective application of the law since the case merely concerned successive laws designed to apply solely with effect from their entry into force. Admittedly, the French courts had taken the applicant’s initial conviction into consideration, but that approach, made possible because his 1984 conviction remained in his criminal record, was not contrary to the Convention, since the offence for which he was prosecuted and punished had taken place after the entry into force of Article 132-9 of the new Criminal Code.   The Court therefore held by 16 votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 7.     Judge Zupančič expressed a concurring opinion and Judge Popović a dissenting opinion, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.   [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.