Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19800509-765376
Timestamp: 2016-12-02 22:24:18+00:00

Document:
AGNEESSENS c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche AGNEESSENS c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Radiation partielle du rôle ; Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (deuxième requérant)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7653/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-05-09;7653.76 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : AGNEESSENSDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATIQN/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7653/76 Felix AGNEESSENS v/Belgium FÃ©lix AGNEESSENS c/Belgiqu e
DECISION of 9 May 1980 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISIQN du 9 mai 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention : Refusal of permission to institute civil action in the course of criminal proceedings . Complaint manifestly ill-founded ; applicant had access to civil courts.
Arilcle 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Refus d'une constitution de partie civile dans un procAs pÃ©nal. Grief manifestement mal fondÃ©, le requÃ©rant ayant accÃ©s aux tribunaux civils .
I English : seep . 179 1
Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant belge nÃ© en 1935 . II est batelier de profession et rÃ©side Ã Lembeek . Devant la Commission est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me J . de Baerdemaeker, avocat Ã Asse, et Me B . Godaert, avocat Ã Bruxelles . La requÃªte concerne les droits que le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend avoir sur un certain nombre de billets de banque yougoslaves actuellement dÃ©tenus par les autoritÃ©s belges et les procÃ©dures judiciairesy relatives . Il existe entre les exposÃ©s des parties certaines divergences quant aux faits de la cause . Elles seront relevÃ©es dans le rÃ©sumÃ© qui suit .
Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que le 17 mai 1969, alors qu'il se trouvait en compagnie d'un autre batelier, il dÃ©couvrit, flottant dans le canal de BruxellesWillebroek Ã la hauteur de la commune de Neder-Qverheembeek, un paque t
contenant des billets de 5000 dinars yougoslaves d'une valeur totale Ã©quivalant Ã environ 500 millions de francs belges . AprÃ©s s'Ãªtre renseignÃ© auprÃ©s d'une banque locale et y avoir appris l'existence d'une affaire de fausse monnaie yougoslave, il persuada son compagnon de se rendre avec lui au commissariat de police pour y dÃ©poser sa trouvaille . Il transporla les billets dans une valise aprÃ¨s en avoir conservÃ© un et aida un agents Ã les compter . Sur ses indications, la police se rendit ensuite sur le bateau de l'autre batelier oÃ¹ elle saisit d'autres billÃ©ts yougoslaves . De son cÃ´tÃ©, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur expose qu'une contrefaÃ§on de billets de 5 000 dinars yougoslaves a Ã©tÃ© signalÃ©e dÃ©s 1968 . Nombre de billets de ce genre, imitÃ©s d'une sÃ©rie Ã©mise le 1â¢ 1 mai 1963, ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©couverts en Yougoslavie, en Allemagne, en Suisse, en Autriche et en Belgique . En mai 1969, un batelier - qui n'Ã©tait pas le requÃ©rant - dÃ©couvrit dans le canal de Bruxelles-Willebroeck, Ã la hauteur de Heembeek, un paquet contenant 12 635 billets de 5 000 dinars yougoslaves . Ce batelier remit 920 de ces billets au requÃ©rant, chez qui ils furent saisis par la police . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clara Ã ce moment qu'il faisait volontairement abandon de la monnaie Ã©trangÃ¨re en sa possession . D'autres billets de banque semblables furent saisis chez les contrefacteurs et chez des tiers, dont plusieurs bateliers . Le Gouvernement ajoute que l'une des personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©e de contrefaÃ§on a dÃ©clarÃ© le 19 mai 1969 qu'une partie des faux billets, avant mÃªme leur numÃ©rotage et leur dÃ©coupage, avaient Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©s comme non satisfaisants et dÃ©truits, alors que d'autres avaient Ã©tÃ© mis en circulation . Cette mÃ©me personne a reconnu que les billets trouvÃ©s dans le canal Ã©taient de sa fabrication . Enfin, se fondant sur les conclusions d'une expertise, le Gouvernement prÃ©cise que ces billets sont identiques - en particulier aussi bien ou aussi mal numÃ©rotÃ©s - Ã ceux saisis chez les personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es . NÃ©anmoins, le requÃ©rant se dÃ©clare convaincu que sa trouvaille est sans lien aucun avec cette affaire de fausse monnaie car elle date de dix jours aprÃ©s l'arrestation des personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es et les billets Ã©taient emballÃ©s dans un papier qui, dans l'eau, n'aurait pu conserver son contenu plus d'une journÃ©e .
Dans l'ensemble, les faits relatÃ©s ci-aprÃ¨s ne font pas l'objet de contestations entre les parties . Les billets que le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare avoir remis Ã la police et que les autoritÃ©s belges dÃ©clarent avoir saisis chez lui furent versÃ©s comme piÃ¨ce Ã - 173 -
conviction au dossier pÃ©nal ouvert contre deux frÃ©res qui avaient Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ©s comme soupÃ§onnÃ©s d'avoir fabriquÃ© quelque 55 .000 faux billets de 5 000 dinars yougoslaves . Cette procÃ©dure pÃ©nale semble avoir retenu l'attention particuliÃ©re du Gouvernement, puisqu'Ã© plusieurs reprises, soit en fÃ©vrier 1970, juin 1970 et avril 1972, selon piÃ¨ces figurant au dossier, le Cabinet du Premier Ministre s'enquit auprÃ©s du MinistÃ©re de la Justice de l'Ã©tat de l'affaire . Par lettre du 6 mai 1970, le requÃ©rant s'adressa au Ministre des finances pour demander la remise du paquet de billets qu'il avait trouvÃ©, le dÃ©lai d'un an suivant le jour de la trouvaille Ã©tant sur le point d'expirer . Le 15 mai 1970 il adressa la mÃªme demande au Procureur du Roi Ã Bruxelles . Le Procureur du Roi rÃ©pondit le 21 mai 1970 qu'il n'Ã©tait pas possible de remettre au requÃ©rant des billets saisis comme faux, l'instruction de l'affaire Ã©tant en cours . Quant au Ministre des finances, il fit savoir au requÃ©rant en novembre 1970 qu'aprÃ©s avoir pris contact avec le Cabinet du Premier Ministre il s'estimait incompÃ©tent pour intervenir . Le 3 dÃ©cembre 1971, le juge d'instruction admit le requÃ©rant comm e partie civile dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre les personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es d'avoir fabriquÃ© les faux billets yougoslaves . Toutefois, le parquet fit opposition et la question fut dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e au tribunal pour dÃ©cision . Avant l'audience, le requÃ©rant et son conseil constatÃ©rent que le dossier ne contenait aucune piÃ¨ce de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, notamment l'expertise sur les billets Ils demandÃ©rent le renvoi de l'affaire et l'apport du dossier complet . Par dÃ©cision du 23 mars 1972, le tribunal refusa la constitution de partie civile du requÃ©rant . Celui-ci recourut le lendemain Ã la cour d'appel, mais celle-ci ne statuera qu'en 1978 (voir ci-aprÃ©s) . Par ailleurs, le parquet rejeta une demande d'accÃ¨s au dossiÃ©r pÃ©nal, formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant . Le requÃ©rant apprit que, consultÃ« en avril 1972 par le Cabinet du Premier Ministre, le MinistÃ¨re de la Justice avait exprimÃ© l'opinion que le paquet de billets n'Ã©tait pas une chose perdue pouvant Ãªtre remise Ã son inventeur aprÃ©s un an et un jour, mais une chose abandonnÃ©e ( res derelicra) dont les possesseurs Ã©taient sous le coup de poursuites pÃ©nales . Le requÃ©rant soumit alors au Cabinet du Ministre de la Justice une proposition de rÃ©glement . Il la renouvela aprÃ©s un changement de gouvernement et, avec l'accord du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral, obtint le 3 mai 1973 l'autorisation de consulter l'avis d'expert figurant au dossier pÃ©nal . Il estima que cet avis contenait plusieurs erreurs qui faisaient douter que les billets revendiquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant aient Ã©tÃ© rÃ©ellement examinÃ©s par l'expert . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©senta alors au CrÃ©dit municipal de Belgique le billet qu'il avait conservÃ© . Cette banque lui rÃ©pondit le 2 mai 1974 que le billet n'Ã©tait pas faux mais appartenait Ã une sÃ©rie retirÃ©e de la circulation le - 174-
18 dÃ©cembre 1968 et Ã©tait donc sans valeur . A sa demande, la Banque de Belgrade lui (it savoir que les billets de ce type, bien que retirÃ©s de la circulation, pouvaient Ãªtre Ã©changÃ©s contre de nouveaux billets jusqu'au 1 -1 juin 1975 . Le 16 juin 1974, le requÃ©rant introduisit action au civil contre l'Etat belge devant le tribunal de premiÃ©re instance de Bruxelles . Il rappelait qu'il s'Ã©tait vu refuser le droit de se constituer partie civile dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale ouverte contre les personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es d'avoir fabriquÃ© de faux billets de 5 000 dinars, que s'il avait pu consulter finalement le rapport d'expertise figurant dans cette procÃ©dure, l'accÃ©s Ã l'ensemble du dossier lui Ã©tait demeurÃ© interdit . Il se plaignit que les autoritÃ©s judiciaires l'avaient ainsi emp@chÃ© de faire valoir ses droits selon les articles 716 ItrÃ©sorl ou 1375 (gestion d'affaire) du code civil et demandait la possibilitÃ© d'accÃ©der au dossier pÃ©nal et Ã sa trouvaille, ainsi que le versement d'une indemnitÃ© provisionnelle de 100 000 francs belges . Par la suite, le requÃ©rant effectua plusieurs dÃ©marches auprÃ©s du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral pour pouvoir examiner tous les billets dÃ©posÃ©s au greffe ainsi que le dossier pÃ©nal . Le 26 mai 1975, il se plaignit de ne pouvoir prendre lui-mÃ¨me aucune mesure conservatoire pour sauvegarder la contre-valeur des billets et invita le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral Ã prendre de telles mesures, faute de quoi il le tiendrait, ainsi que le Ministre de la Justice, pour responsables de tout dommage qu'il pourrait subir . En mai et en juillet 1976, le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral confirma au requÃ©rant qu'il ne pouvait l'autoriser Ã consulter le dossier pÃ©nal, celui-ci n'Ã©tant pas encore clos . Mais il l'avait nÃ©anmoins autorisÃ© Ã examiner, en mars 1976, deux piÃ¨ces relatives aux circonstances dans lesquelles des billets avaient Ã©tÃ© jetÃ©s dans le canal . Or il ressortait de l'une de ces piÃ¨ces que l'un des suspects aurait dÃ©clarÃ© s'Etre ainsi dÃ©fait de billets de mauvaise qualitÃ© et non numÃ©rotÃ©s ; le requÃ©rant soutient que les billets qu'il avait trouvÃ©s Ã©taient datÃ©s et numÃ©rotÃ©s . Le 17 mai 1977, le tribunal mit fin aux poursuites pÃ©nales pour cause de prescription . Peu aprÃ©s, le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral autorisa le requÃ©rant Ã examiner les billets saisis . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare avoir constatÃ© Ã cette occasion que les billets trouvÃ©s par lui, d'une valeur d'Ã©change d'environ 463 millions de francs belges, sont numÃ©rotÃ©s et imprimÃ©s en cinq couleurs et non en trois couleurs comme les faux billets . Le 19 septembre 1977, le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral indiqua Ã l'avocat du requÃ©rant que, sur l'appel de ce dernier contre la dÃ©cision du tribunal correctionnel du 23 mars 1972 refusant au requÃ©rant la qualitÃ© de partie civlle dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale contre les faux-monnayeurs, il demanderait Ã la cour d'appel de dÃ©clarer le recours irrecevable pour les motifs indiquÃ©s dans la dÃ©cision du tribunal correctionnel . - 175-
Le 8 fÃ©vrier 1978, le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral modifia son argumentation pour dire qu'Ã© son avis il n'Ã©tait pas possible de reconnaitre au requÃ©rant la qualitÃ© de partie civile dans une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale qui a Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ©e . Le 8 juin 1978, la chambre des mises en accusation de la cour d'appel dÃ©cida qu'elle ne pouvait examiner le point de savoir s'il y avait eu ou non violation des droits de la partie civile car elle n'avait pas Ã connaitre de l'affaire pÃ©nale, abandonnÃ©e en raison de la prescription . La cour dÃ©clarait en outre qu'elle n'avait pas compÃ©tence pour ordonner que le dossier pÃ©nal complet soit mis Ã la disposition du requÃ©rant . Elle estimait qu'elle ne peut que le renvoyer Ã s'adresser Ã la juridiction civile pour faire valoir ses arguments . Le 12 mai 1979, le requÃ©rant s'adressa une fois de plus au Ministre de la Justice en proposant une transaction . Dans sa rÃ©ponse du 18 mai 1979, le Ministre n'estimait pas opportun d'examiner une telle proposition, en vue du fait que la prÃ©sente requÃªte Ã©tait pendante devant la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . En rÃ©ponse Ã une lettre du requÃ©rant du 6 juin 1979, le Procureu r gÃ©nÃ©ral lui fit savoir que l'affaire n'Ã©tait plus de sa compÃ©tence puisqu'elle Ã©tait pendante devant la Commission .
GRIEFS Le requÃ©rant estime qu'en lui refusant la qualitÃ© de partie civile, en lui refusant l'accÃ©s au dossier pÃ©nal et en l'empÃªchant ainsi de faire procÃ©der Ã une expertise, les autoritÃ©s belges ne lui ont pas permis de faire valoir devant les tribunaux ses droits sur les billets de banque qu'il dÃ©clare avoir trouvÃ©s . Il se prÃ©tend victime, de ce fait, d'une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention .
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint que les autoritÃ©s belges l'empÃªchent de faire valoir en justice les droits qu'il prÃ©tend avoir sur un certain nombre de billets de banque yougoslaves qu'il aurait trouvÃ©s dans un canal le 17 mai 1969 et dont il affirme l'authenticitÃ©. L'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention stipule notamment : Â« Toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquement et dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera, soit des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil, soit . . . r r Parmi les divers fondements juridiques mentionnÃ©s par le requÃ©ran t
pour Ã©tablir les droits auxquels il prÃ©tend, l'un au moins n'est pas contest Ã© - 176-
entre les parties, Ã savoir que le requÃ©rant pourrait soutenir Ã¨tre l'occupant d'une res derelicta . La Commission n'hÃ©site pas Ã qualifier les droits d'un tel occupant de Â« droits de caractAre civil Â», au sens de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e, de sorte que les garanties y Ã©noncAes s'appliquent en principe au litige auquel le requÃ©rant est partie . Selon la jurisprudence de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, l'accÃ¨s au juge Â« constitue un Ã©lÃ©ment inhÃ©rent au droit qu'Ã©nonce l'article 6, paragraphe 1 Â» (Affaire Golder, arrÃªt du 21 fÃ©vrier 1975, paragraphe 36) . Or, en l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant s'est vu refuser la qualitÃ© de panie civile dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale ouverte contre les personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es d'avoir fabriquÃ© de la fausse monnaie yougoslave . Quant Ã l'exigence de l'Ã©puisement prÃ©alable des voies de recours internes (article 26 de la Convention), la Commission estime pouvoir se dispenser de rechercher si le requÃ©rant pouvait exercer un recours efficace contre ce refus en ce pourvoyant en cassation contre l'arrPt de la chambre de mises en accusation du 8 juin 1978, alors mÃªme que la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale avait pris fin pour cause de prescription . Quoi qu'il en soit, la Commission observe que, d'une maniÃ©re gÃ©nÃ©rale, la constitution de partie civile a pour objet de permettre Ã la personne qui s'estime lÃ©sÃ©e par une infraction de faire valoir contre l'auteur de celle-ci et dans le cadre de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale des prÃ©tentions Ã rÃ©paration . Or, de l'aveu mÃªme du requÃ©rant, c'est Ã l'Etat belge - et non aux faux-monnayeurs prÃ©sumÃ©s - qu'il entendait s'en prendre pour obtenir la restitution des billets litigieux . DÃ¨s lors, on ne peut exclure que la dÃ©marche du requÃ©rait ait Ã©tA mal adressÃ©e et que sa constitution de partie civile ait Ã©tÃ© Ã©cartÃ©e Ã juste titre . Cette question peut toutefois demeurer pendante, puisque le requArant a pu assigner l'Etat belge devant le juge civil pour obtenir restitution des billets qu'il revendique ou, respectivement . des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts Ã raison du fait qu'ils n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© prAsentÃ©s pour Ã©change Ã leur Ã©chÃ©ance . Il a donc eu accÃ¨s Ã un tribunal pour faire Ã©tablir ses droits . Sans doute le requÃ©rant objecte-t-il, d'une part que cette instance civile ne pouvait progresser tant que la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale Ã©tait pendante, d'autre part qu'il n'y avait aucune chance que le juge puisse donner au requÃ©rant l'accÃ©s Ã un dossier que la chambre des mises en accusation avait refusA . Cet argument serait pertinent en lui-mÃªme car un obstacle de fait peut enfreindre la Convention Ã l'Ã©gal d'un obstacle juridique (Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, arrÃªt Golder prÃ©citÃ©, paragraphe 26 ; arrÃ©t Airey, du 9 octobre 1979, paragraphe 25) . Toutefois, il manque en fait : ainsi que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur l'a relevÃ©, le cours de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre les faux-monnayeurs prÃ©sumÃ©s n'empÃªchait pas la progression d'une procÃ©dure civile dirigÃ©e contre l'Etat belge car le principe Â« le pAnal tient le civil en l'Ã©tat Â» ne vise que l'action civile dirigÃ©e contre l'accusÃ© . D'autre part ,
la Commission ne voit pas pourquoi le fait que la chambre des mises en accusation a dÃ©niÃ© au requÃ©rant la qualitÃ© de partie civile et, par lÃ , le droit de consulter le dossier pÃ©nal empÃªcherait le juge civil d'ordonner Ã l'Etat belge, en sa qualitÃ© de dÃ©fendeur, de produire des documents ou objets qu'il dÃ©tient, afin de permettre une expertise . Il demeure que, dans l'instance civile qu'il a engagÃ©e contre l'Eta t belge, le requÃ©rant n'a demandÃ© ni la fixation de l'affaire ni l'apport des billets litigieux a0x fins d'expertise ou de contre-expertise, et que cette instance demeure pendante . En i'Ã©tat, le requÃ©rant ne saurait donc se plaindre de s'Ã©trevu refuser, en droit ou en fait, l'accÃ©s Ã un juge pour faire Ã©tablir ses droits . Il n'y a donc, sur ce point, aucune apparence de violation de la, Convention et cette partie de la requÃªte doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement'mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant semble se plaindre Ã©galement d'une atteinte au droit au respect de ses biens, tel qu'il est Ã©noncÃ© Ã l'anicle 1Â°' du Protocole additionnel, du fait que les autoritÃ©s belges ont refusÃ© de lui restituer, aprÃ¨s l'avoir saisi, un paquet de billets dÃ© banque qÃ»'il estime lui appartenir . Toutefois, le requÃ©rant a introduit le 16 juin 1974 une procÃ©dure civile contre l'Etat belge, procÃ©dure qui devrait lui permettre, en cas de succÃ©s, de faire reconnaÃ®tre les droits auxquels il prÃ©tend sur les billets litigieux, d'obtenir la restitution de ceux-ci ou des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts en cas de disparition ou de perte de leur validitÃ© . . Cette procÃ©dure Ã©tant aujourd'hui pendante devant le tribunal de premiÃ©re instance de Bruxelles, le requÃ©rant n'a donc pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours dont il disposait en droit belge . D'autre part, se rÃ©fÃ©rant au considÃ©rant prÃ©cÃ©dent in fine, la Commission ne discerne aucune circonstance particuliÃ©re de nature Ã relever le requÃ©rant de l'obligation d'avoir Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes avant de s'adresser Ã la Commission . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait 9 .la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, prÃ©vue Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, de sorte que le restant de la requÃªte doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© en application de l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commis ion .
DÃCLARE LA REtJUÃTE IRRECEVABL E
THE FACT S The applicant is a Belgian citizen born in 1935 . He is a boatman and lives at Lembeek . He is represented before the Commission by Mr J . de Baerdemaeker, a lawyer practising at Asse, and Mr B . Godaert, a lawyer oractising in Brussels . The application concerns the applicant's alleged rights to a number of Yugoslav banknotes, at present held by the Belgian authorities, and the related judicial proceedings . There are a number of discrepancies in the statements of the parties regarding the facts of the case . Attention will be drawn to them in the summary below .
The applicant submits that on 17 May 1969, when he was in the company of another boatman, he discovered a parcel containing 5 .000 dinars Yugoslav banknotes, worth approximately 500 million Belgian francs, floating in the Brussels-Willebroeck canal near Neder-Overheembeek . After enquiring at the local bank and learning that there had been a case of forged Yugoslav currency, he persuaded his companion to accompany him to the police station and deposit his find . He kept one banknote, carried the rest in a case and helped a police officer to count them . Acting on his information, the police subsequently went to the other boatman's vessel where they seized further Yugoslav banknotes . For its part, the respondent Government submits that the counterfeiting of Yugoslav 5 .000 dinar banknotes had been reported as early as 1968 . A number of notes of this type, imitated from a series issued on 1 May 1963, have been discovered in Yugoslavia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Belgium . In May 1969, another boatman, discovered a parcel containing 12 .635 Yugoslav 5 .000 dinar notes in the Brussels- Willebroek canal near Heembeek . This boatman handed over 920 banknotes to the applicant and these were seized at his home by the police . The applic~nt declared at the time that he was voluntarily surrendering the foreign currency in his possession . Further similar banknotes were seized from the counterfeiters and from third parties, including a number of boatmen . The Government adds that one of the persons suspected of counterfeiting declared on 19 May 1969 that some of the forged notes had been regarded as unsatisfactory and destroyed even before they had been numbered and cut, whilst others had been put into circulation . This same person admitted that the notes found in the canal had been made by him . - 179 -
Lastly, on the basis of the conclusions of an expert examination, the Government points out that these notes are identical-in particular they are equally well or badly numbered-with those seized in the homes of the suspects . Nevertheless, thÃ© applicant states his conviction that his find has nothing to do with this case of forged currency since it occured 10 days after the arrest of the suspects, and the banknotes were packed in a paperwhich could not have protected the contents for more than one day in water ,
On the whole, the facts set out below are not disputedby either of the parties .
The banknotes, which the applicant states he handed over to the police and which the Belgian authorities claim to have seized at his home, were used as exhibits in the criminal proceedings instituted against two brothers who had been arrested on suspicion of counterfeiting some 55,000 forges Yugoslav 5,000 dinar banknotes . The Government seems to have been particularly interested in these criminal proceedings, since according to documents in the file, the Prime Minister's office approached the Ministry of Justice on a number of occasions, ie in February 1980, June 1970 and April 1972, for details of progress ih the case . In a letter dated 6 May 1970, the applicant asked the Minister of Finance for the return of the parcel of banknotes he had found, since the time limit of one year from the day of the find was about to expire . On 15 May 1970 he made the same request to the Public Prosecutor in Brussels . The Public Prosecutor replied on 21 May 1970 that it was not possible to return the banknotes seized as forgeries to the applicant, because investigations into the case were proceeding . The Minister of Finance informed the applicant in November 1970 that after contacting the Prime Minister's office he did not consider himself competent to intervene . On 3 December 1971 the investigating judge authorised the applicant to institute a .civil action appended to the criminal proceedings against the persons suspected of having counterfeited Yugoslav banknotes . However, the Public Prosecutor's office objected and the matter was referred to!the court for a decision . Before the trial, the applicant and counsel found that the file contained no documents relating to the criminal proceedings and in particular did not contain a copy of the expert examination of the banknotes . They asked for the case to be deferred and for the full file to be produced . In its decision o f
23 March 1972, the court refused to allow the applicant to institute a civil action . He approached the Court of Appeal the next day, but the latter did not pronounce judgment until 1978 (see below) . Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor's office rejected a request by the applicant for access to the criminal file . The applicant learned that, after being consulted by the Prime Minister's office in April 1972, the Ministry of Justice had expressed the opinion that the parcelof banknotes was not a lost object which could be handed over to its finder after one year and one day but a res derelicta whose owners were the subject of criminal proceedings . The applicant then submitted a proposal for a settlement to the office of the Minister of Justice . He did so again after a change of government and, with the agreement of the "Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral", he was authorised on 3 May 1973 to consult the expert examination in the criminal file . He was of the opinion that this report contained a numberdf errors which made it uncertain whether the banknotes claimed by the applicant had really been examined by the expert . The applicant then presented the banknote he had kept to the CrÃ©dit Municipal de Belgique . The latter replied on 2 May 1974 that the banknotes was .not a forgery but that it belonged to a series withdrawn from circulation on 18 December 1968 and was therefore of no value . At his request the Bank of Belgrade informed'him that, although withdrawn from circulation, notes of this type could beexchanged for new ones up to 1 June 1975 . On 16 June 1974, the applicant instituted a civil action against the Belgian State before the Court of first instance in Brussels . He recalled that he had been refused the right to institute a civil action in the criminal proceedings against persons suspected of counterfeiting 5,000 dinar banknotes, and that although he had finally been able to consult the expert report produced at those proceedings, he was still not authorised to examine the .whole file . He complained that the judicial authorities had thus prevented him from upholdinghis rights in pursuance of sections 716(treasure) or 1375 Imanagement .of,the case) of the Civil Code and he asked to be allowed to examine the criminal file and his find and for the payment of 100,000 Belgian francs as provisional compensation . Subsequently, the applicant approached the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral on a
number of occasions to ask for permission to examine all the banknotes deposited with the Registry and the criminal file . On 26 May 1975, he complained of not being able to take any preventive measure to safeguard . the exchange value of the banknotes and asked the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral to take such measures, otherwise he would hold him and the Minister of Justice responsible for any loss he suffered . In May 1976, the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral again informed the applicant that he could not aulhorise him to consult the criminal file because the case wa s
not yet closed . But in March 1976 he had nevertheless authorised him to examine two documents relating to the circumstances in which banknotes had been thrown into the canal . One of these documents revealed, however, that one of the suspects had allegedly declared that he had thus disposed of banknotes which were of poor quality and not numbered . The, applicant submits that the notes he found were dated and numbered . On 17 May 1977, the court terminated the criminal proceedings because ot statutory limitations . Shortly thereafter, the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral authorised the applicant to examine the notes seized . The applicant submits that he noted on that occasion that .the banknotes found by him ; whose exchange value was approximately 463 million Belgian francs, were numbered and printed in 5 colours, not in 3 colours like the forged notes . On 19 September 1977 the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral informed the applicant's lawyer, that following the applicant's appÃ©al against the decision by the Criminal Court of 23 March 1972 refusing to allow the applicant to institute a civil action in criminal proceedings against the forgerers, he intended to ask the Court of Appeal to declare the appeal inadmissible on the grounds set out in the Criminal Court's decision . On 8 February 1978, the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral altered his argument and said that, in his opinion, it was not possible to allow the applicant to institute a civil action in criminal proceedings which had been dropped . On 8 June 1978, the indictment chamber of the Court of Appeal decided that it could not examine whether or not there had been violation of the rights of the civil party, because it was not competent to consider the criminal case which had been abandoned because of statutory limitation . The Court also stated that it was not competent to order that the full criminal file be made available to the applicant . It was of the opinion that it could recommend him to approach the civil courts in order to pursue his arguments . On 12 May 1979 the applicant wrote to the Minister of Justice onc e more and proposed a settlement . In his reply of 18 May 1979, the Minister did not think it opportune to examine such a'proposal because of the fact that the present application was pending before the European Commission of Human Rights . . . In reply to a letter from the applicant of 6 June . 1979, the Procureur GÃ©nÃ©raÃ informed him that he was no longer competent to deal with thÃ© case because it was pending before the Commission S
â¢ The applicant is of the opinion that by refusing to allow him to institute civil action, by denying him accÃ¨ss to the criminal file and by thu s
preventing him from arranging for an expert opinion, the Belgian authorities have prevented him from asserting before the Courts his rights to the banknotes which he allegedly found . Accordingly, he claims to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 .1 of the Convention .
THE LA W The applicant complains that the Belgian authorities are preventing him 1 from asserting in Court the rightS he claims to a certain number of Yugoslav banknotes which he allegedly found in a canal on 17 May 1969 and which he claims are authentic . Article 6 .1 of the Convention stipulates inrer alia that :"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations . . ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . . ." . Among the various legal grounds mentioned by the applicant to establish his alleged rights, one at least is not in dispute between the parties, namely that the applicant could claim to be the occupant of a res derelicra . The Commission has no hesitation in describing such rights as "civil rights", within the meaning of the aforesaid provision, so that the guarantees set out in it apply in principle to the dispute to which the applicant is a party . According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, access to a judge "constitutes an element which is inherent in the right stated by Article 6 .1 IGolder case, decision of 21 February 1975, paragraph 36) . But, in the case at issue, the applicant was refused permission to institute a civil action in connection with the criminal proceedings against persons suspected of having manufactured the forged Yugoslav currency . As for the requirement that all domestic remedies must first have been exhausted (Article 26 of the Convention), the Commission does not think it necessary to establish whether the applicant could have appealed effectively against this refusal by Petitioning the Court of Cassation against the decision of the indictment chamber of 8 June 1978, in view of the fact that the criminal proceedings had been terminated because of statutory limitations . However that may be, the Commission points out that, in general, the institution of a civil action as part of criminal proceedings is intended to enable a person who considers himself harmed by an offence to sue the perpetrator for compensation . But, as the applicant himself admits, he intended to institute an action against the Belgian Sate-and not against th e
alleged counterfeiters-in order to recover the banknotes in dispute . Accordingly, it cannot be excluded that the applicant might have chosen the wrong remedy and that his application for a civil action was rightly dismissed . This question may, however, be left in abeyance, since the applicant was able to bring a case against the Belgian State before a civil judge in order to recover the banknotes he claimed, or alternatively, sue for compensation because they had not been exchanged before they lost their value . He thus had access to a tribunal in order to establish his rights . Admittedly the applicant objects that this civil action could not be taken further as long as the criminal proceedings were pending also that there was no likelihood of the iudqe beinq able to grant the applicant access to a file since the indictment chamber has already refused this . This argument would also be relevant becaÃ»se hindrance in fact can contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment" (European Court of Human Rights, Golder decision quoted above, para . 26 ; Airey decision, of 9 October 1979, para . 251 . However, as the respondent Government pointed out, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the alleged counterfeiters did not prevent the institution of a civil action against the Belgian State, because the principle that civil action cannot be taken before a prosecution is completed applies only to a civil action aqainst the accused . Furthermore, the Commission cannot see why the fact that the indictment chamber refused to allow the applicant to institute a civil action and, therefore, did not authorise him to consult the criminal file, should prevent the civil judge from ordering the Belgian State, as the defendent, to produce documents or objects held by it in order to permit an expert examination . The fact remains that in the civil action against the Belgian State, the applicant asked neither for a date for hearing not for the production of the banknotes in dispute for the purpose of an expert examination or reexamination and this action is still pending . Actually, the applicant cannot complain, of having been refused access to a judge to establish his rights in law or in fact .
Therefore, on this point there is no trace of Ã© violation of the Convention and this part of the application must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant also seems to complain about an infringement of his entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as set out in Article 1 of the Protocol, because the Belgian authorities refused to return the parcel of banknotes which he considers are his after seizing them .
However, on 16 June 1974 the applicant instituted a civil action against the Belgian State, which should enable him, if it is successful, to secur e - 184 _
recognition of his alleged rights to the banknotes in dispute, to have them returned to him or to be awarded damages if they have disappÃ©ared or lost their value . Since this action is still pending at the present time before the Court of first instance in Brussels, the applicant has therefore not exhausted the remedies available to him under Belgian law . Furthermore, with reference to the end of the previous paragraph, the Commission is unable to establish any particular circumstance likely to relieve the applicant of the obligation to exhaust all domestic remedies before seizing the Commission . It follows, therefore, that the applicant has not satisfied the condition that all domestic remedies must first be exhausted, as provided for under Article 26 of the Convention, so that the remainder of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 .3 of the Convention .
For these reasons the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE :
- 185-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 09/05/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 L'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27
in fine
 l'article 26
 l'article 27