CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 12 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   119 12.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Admissibility decision   Monedero and Others v. France (no. 32798/06)   Unanimously: application inadmissible   PENALTIES IMPOSED ON GAMING ORGANISERS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE       Principal facts   The applicants are two individuals, Mr José Monedero and Mrs Rose-Marie Monedero (née Penas), who were born in 1951 and 1956 respectively and live in Alénya, and a private limited company incorporated under French law, SILMO, with its registered office in the same municipality.   Mrs Monedero is the manager of SILMO, which operated two halls it rented from their owner, Mr Monedero, and in turn leased them to “non-profit-making associations”, which organised bingo sessions there (known as “ rifles ”). This activity took place on a continuous basis from 1999 to 2005.   In February 2002 an inspection by customs officers was carried out at one of the halls. At the end of the inspection, having interviewed a number of people including the individual applicants, the customs officers concluded that the applicant company was involved in the organisation of the bingo sessions.   Further to a request by the customs inspector, Mrs Monedero indicated the amount of the organising associations’ revenue deriving from the bingo sessions as 1,211,343.27 euros (EUR). An investigation was opened by the public prosecutor and criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants. They were found guilty of “participating in the running of a gaming house to which the public is freely admitted” – within the meaning of the Law of 12 July 1983 prohibiting certain types of gaming equipment – and of subsequently inciting witnesses to give false evidence. In the context of the criminal proceedings they received a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment, and further to the action brought by the customs authorities they were ordered to pay a total of EUR 4,305,018.30 (by way of various fines and the confiscation of proceeds).   In January 2005 the judgment was upheld on appeal in respect of both the criminal and the customs proceedings, except as regards the amount payable, which was reduced to EUR 2,764,651.80. Arguing that there had been a disproportionate interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged that there had been a "failure to observe the principle of equality of arms and fairness of evidence”, a violation of the “right to a hearing by a court fit to give a decision” and a violation of the “right of the court to be able to adjust the penalty”. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained that the sum payable as a result of their conviction was disproportionate.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 July 2006.   The decision was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), Judges, and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, the Court could not find any appearance of a violation; this complaint was therefore dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court reiterated that taxation in principle constituted interference with the right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. While the State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in matters of tax policy, a fine that imposed an excessive burden or fundamentally interfered with the financial position of the person concerned would be at variance with the provisions of that Article.   The interference with the applicants’ right of property had been in accordance with the statutory provisions that laid down precise rules on gaming in France, and pursued public-interest objectives which required regulation of this sphere of activity.   Furthermore, whether a sanction was disproportionate had to be assessed in relation to the offence committed and not, as the applicants argued, in relation to personal assets.   The applicants had set up an illegal scheme to generate profit by circumventing the statutory rules governing both the organisation and the taxation of games of chance. The domestic courts had, moreover, ruled out any possibility that they had acted in good faith, in view of their decisive role in the running of the bingo sessions and their attempts to frustrate the proceedings against them, including by inciting witnesses to give false evidence.   In addition, the penalties imposed had in fact been adjustable. In the criminal proceedings the applicants had received a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment for several offences, whereas one of those offences in itself carried a two-year prison sentence. Similarly, the penalty imposed in the customs proceedings had been substantially reduced by the Court of Appeal, which had taken account of mitigating circumstances.   The penalties, although significant, had fallen within the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in matters of tax policy, especially as they concerned the regulation of games of chance, which was aimed in particular at combating money laundering. Accordingly, the penalties imposed on the applicants had not been disproportionate in view of the offences committed. Their complaint was thus dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.   ***   The decision is only available in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The decisions are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int )   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.