Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19821006-953181
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 16:47:59+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9531/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1982-10-06;9531.81 Parties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9531 /8 1 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y X . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 6 October 1982 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 octobre 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, peragraph 2 of the Convention : This provision does not oblige States to bear the experrses of a person in respect of whonr criminal proceedings have been discontiruted .
Artlcle 6, paragrephe 2, de la Conventlon : Cette disposition n'oblige pas les Etats Ã supporter les dÃ©bours d'une personne qui, aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© poursuivie pÃ©nalement . est mise au bÃ©nÃ©fice d'un non-lieu .
(â¢ . -~~~~a, â¢â¢i,r . -1 1 . ;)
Proceedings against the applicant, accused of aiding and abetting in a roa d traffic offence and of having made false declarations, were discontinued bv virt ue of Article 154, parakraph 2 of the German Code of crimirra l proceedings . which allows for the discontinuation of criminal proceedings for minor offences . The costs of the proceedings were imposed on the Treasury but the court decided that the applicant should bear his own expenses.
THE LAW The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings pending against him were discontinued but the court ordered the Treasury to pay the costs of the proceedings only and not his necessary expenses . He considers that the decision on costs violates Article 6 (2) of the Convention, which secures the guarantee of presumption of innocence to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" . According to the Commision's jurisprudence, this provision does not give the accused an unconditional right to the continuation of proceedings pending against him until the final proof or disproof of the charge . But if th e -213-
proceedings are terminated at an earlier stage it protects a person who has not been convicted by a final judgment against any formal acknowledgement of his guilt in any form whatever (cf. decisions on the admissibility of Applications Nos . 6281/73 and 6650/75, Decisions and Reports 5, pp . 13, and 58 ; Report on Application No . 8269/78, Adolf v . Austria, para . 56) . In the cases cited the applicants complained that the wording of the decisions discontinuing criminal proceedings or the wording of such decisions in connection with the decision on costs contained a positive affirmation of their guilt, and in fact the Commission reached the opinion in the Adolf case that the domestic decision complained of violated Article 6 (2) because it created the impression that the facts of a criminal offence committed by the applicant had been established . In the present application the applicant does not complain of the wording of the decision on costs which indeed does not contain any statement which could be interpreted as affirming the applicant's guilt . The applicant submits that the fact of his having to bear his necessary expenses by itself .violates Article 6 (2) . However, the Commission has already stated in connection with the interpretation of this provision that it does not contain any general indication relating to the question of reimbursement of personal costs . In particular it does not imply any obligation on the part of the High Contracting States to see to it that a person who is acquitted of criminal charges or against whom criminal proceedings were pending and then discontinued is free of any charge resulting from costs or expenses related to the proceedings in question . Not only does Article 6 (2) read in conjunction with Article 5 (5) not oblige the States to pay compensation to an acquitted person for his detention on remand if the detention was justifled under Article 5(1) (c) (see decision on admissibility of Application No . 5969/72 DR 2, p . 52), but still less can a person against whom proceedings have been discontinued claim that this provision requires the State to accept the costs of his defence (cf . decision on the admissibility of Application No . 9037/80, unpublished) . An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n
RÃ©sumÃ© des fal b AccusÃ© de complicitÃ© d'infraction au code de la route et fausses dÃ©clarations . le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© finalement mis au bÃ©nÃ©fice d'un non-lieu, en application de l'article 154, par. 2, du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale allemand. qui permet de mettre fin Ã la poursuite pour des infractions mineures.
Le tribunal mit les dÃ©pens Ã la charge du TrÃ©sor mais dÃ©cida que le requÃ©rant supporterait ses propres dÃ©boires .
(TRADUCTION ) EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant se plaint que, malgrÃ© le non-lieu prononcÃ© dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale le concernant, le tribunal a adjugÃ© les dÃ©pens au TrÃ©sor, mais non ses propres dÃ©bours indispensables . Il estime cette dÃ©cision sur les frais contraire Ã l'article 6, par . 2, de la Convention, qui garantit la prÃ©somption d'innocence Ã "toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction" . Selon la jurisprudence de la Commission, cette disposition ne donne pas Ã l'accusÃ© le droit absolu Ã ce que la procÃ©dure se poursuive jusqu'Ã ce que l'accusation ait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©finitiventent reconnue findÃ©e ou non . Cependant, si la procÃ©dure prend fin prÃ©maturÃ©ment, la Convention protÃ¨ge la personne non condamnÃ©e par un jugement dÃ©finitif contre toute constatation formelle de sa culpabilitÃ©, sous quelque forme que ce soit (cf . dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 6281/73 et NÂ° 6650/75, DR 5, pp . 13 et 58 ; rapport sur la requÃªte NÂ° 8269/78, Adolf c . Autriche, par. 56) . Dans ces affaires, les requÃ©rants se plaignaient que le libellÃ© des dÃ©cisions de non-lieu ou celui des dÃ©cisions concemant les (rais contenait une affirmation quant Ã leur culpabilitÃ© . La Commission a effectivement formulÃ© l'avis dans l'affaire Adolf que la dÃ©cision interne en question Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 6, par . 2, en ce qu'elle donnait l'impression que les Paits constitutifs d'une infraction pÃ©nale commise par le requÃ©rant avaient Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablis . En l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant ne se plaint pas du libellÃ© de la dÃ©cision concernant les frais, qui ne contient d'ailleurs aucune dÃ©claration pouvant Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ©e comme affirntant la culpabilitÃ© de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Il soutient que le fait de lui adjuger ses propres dÃ©bours indispensables est en soi contraire Ã l'article 6 . par. 2 . Cependant, la Commission a dÃ©jÃ dÃ©clarÃ©, Ã propos de l'interprÃ©tation de cette disposition, que l'article ne contient aucune indicatio n
gÃ©nÃ©rale sur la question du remboursement des dÃ©bours personnels . Elle n'implique notamment pas pour les Etats contractants l'obligation de veiller Ã ce que la personne acquittÃ©e d'une accusation pÃ©nale ou admise au bÃ©nÃ©fice d'un non-lieu ne se voit imputer aucun frais ou dÃ©pens y affÃ©rent . Non seulement l'article 6, par . 2, lu en liaison avec l'article 5, par . 5, n'oblige pas l'Etat Ã indemniser la personne acquittÃ©e si la dÃ©tention provisoire Ã©tait justifiÃ©e au regard de l'article 5, par . 1(c) (cf . dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte NÂ° 5969/72 . DR 2 . p . 52), mais l'intÃ©ressÃ© admis au bÃ©nÃ©tice d'un non-lieu peut encore moins prÃ©tendre que cette disposition oblige l'Etat Ã supporter le coÃ»t de sa dÃ©fense (cf . dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte NÂ° 9037/80, non publiÃ©e) .
L'examen par la Commission de ce grief tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© exposÃ© ne rÃ©vÃ¨le donc aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s consacrÃ©s par la Convention et, notamment, par l'article prÃ©citÃ© . Il en dÃ©coule que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27 . par . 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
- 216 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 06/10/1982Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 154
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 27