CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 février 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   151 26.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GRIFHORST v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Grifhorst v. France (application no. 28336/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the disproportionate nature of the penalty imposed on the applicant for failure to declare a sum of money to the customs authorities.   The Court also held, by six votes to one, that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not yet ready for decision. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Robert Grifhorst, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1949 and lives in Erts la   Massana (Andorra).   The case concerned a penalty – the confiscation of a sum of money plus a fine – imposed on the applicant for failing to declare the sum of money to the customs authorities at the border between France and Andorra.   On 29 January 1996, on his way into France from Andorra, the applicant was stopped by French customs officers. When asked twice by the customs officers if he had any money to declare, the applicant replied that he did not. The customs officers searched him and his vehicle and found 500,000   Netherlands   guilders in his pockets, the equivalent of 233,056   euros   (EUR). They seized the full amount. The applicant declared that he had withdrawn the money from the Credit of Andorra bank to buy a property in Amsterdam.   The Netherlands authorities informed the National Intelligence and Customs Investigation Department (DNRED) that Mr Grifhorst was known to the Dutch police for activities dating back to 1983 (threats, extorsion, kidnapping and possession of a firearm). They subsequently added that his only known activity was related to real estate and that the Dutch police had suspected him of using that activity as a front for money laundering, but that no further concrete evidence could be produced.   In October 1998 the Perpignan Criminal Court (France) found the applicant guilty of failure to comply with the obligation under Article 464 of the Customs Code to declare money, securities or valuables. He was sentenced, under Article 465 of the Customs Code, to the confiscation of the full amount plus a fine equal to half the amount he had failed to declare (225,000   Netherlands guilders, the equivalent of EUR   116,828). The judgment was upheld on appeal in March 2001. In January 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected an appeal on points of law.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 July 2002 and declared partly admissible on 7 September 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that the confiscation and fine amounted to a disproportionate penalty considering the nature of the charge against him.   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the interference in question was provided for by French law and pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest, namely combating the laundering of the proceeds from drug trafficking. It was aware how important that combat was for the member States and observed that, over the years, an increasing number of international instruments (United Nations and Council of Europe conventions, recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)) and community standards had been engineered to set up effective means of controlling cross-border capital flows. Requiring people to declare any cash they are carrying when they cross a border, and punishing them if they fail to do so was one such measure.   As to whether the French authorities had struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of Mr Grifhorst’s fundamental rights, the Court noted first of all that there was no indication in the case file that the applicant had been tried for, or convicted of, money laundering. The only offence he was known to have committed was that of deliberately not declaring the money he had been carrying. In their submissions before the Criminal Court the customs authorities had even acknowledged that the sum found on him had been in keeping with his personal wealth.   The Court also emphasised the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, namely the combined confiscation of the full sum he had been carrying and a fine of half that amount, making a total of EUR   349,584. It observed in particular that in the other member States of the Council of Europe the penalty most frequently applied in such cases was a fine and that only the part of the sum in excess of the permitted amount was subject to confiscation.   Furthermore, the Court noted that the French authorities had amended Article 465 of the Customs Code since 2004, so that it no longer provided for automatic confiscation, and the fine had been reduced to a quarter of the sum concerned. It further pointed out that in most of the relevant international or community instruments reference was made to the need for the penalties prescribed by the States to be   “proportionate”.   The Court therefore found that the penalty imposed on the applicant had been disproportionate, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.