Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770310-690375
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 21:12:15+00:00

Document:
DE WEER c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche DE WEER c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6903/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-03-10;6903.75 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : DE WEERDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6903/75 Julius DE WEER v/BELGIUM Julius DE WEER c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 10 March 1977 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 10 mars 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention : Shopkeeper, charged with an infringement of price regulations, threatened by the public prosecutor with the immediate closure of his shop if he does not pay a fine by way of compromise . Does this constitue a renunciation of the guarantees of a fair trial obtained through threats of considerable materiaf loss ? Application declared admissible . Article 26 of the Convention : In proceedings instituted for the prosecution of an infringement of price regulations, an appeal whose purpose is to annul the decree on which the offence is based might not constitute an effective remedy . Article 6 paragraphe 1, de la Convention : CommerÃ§ant auquel est reprochÃ©e une infraction Ã la rÃ©glementation des prix, menacÃ© par le parquet de la fermetura immÃ©diate de son magasin sit ne paie pas une amende transactionnelle . S'agit-if d'une renonciation aux garanties d'un procÃ©s Ã©quitabte obtenue par la menace d'un prÃ©judice considÃ©rabfe ? RequÃªte dÃ©cferÃ©e recevabfe . Article 26 de la Convention : S egissant de la procÃ©dure suivie pour la poursuite d'une infraction Ã la rÃ©gtementation des prix, un recours tendant Ã t'annutation de l'arrÃªtÃ© royal auquel il aurait Ã©tÃ© contrevenu ne constituerait pas un recours efficace .
I fngtish : seep . 96)
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par Ã©crit par les parties et qu'ils rÃ©suhent du dossier, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© belge, est nÃ© le 30 aoÃ¹t 1914 Ã Leefdaal . Il est domiciliÃ© Ã Louvain oÃ¹ il exerce la profession de boucher . Il est mprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Maitre Jean-Marie van Hille, avocat prÃ©s la cour d'appel de Gand . En application d'un arrPtÃ©-loi du 22 janvier 1945, modifiÃ© par la loi du 30 juillet 1971, sur la rÃ©glementation Ã©conomique et les prix, le Ministre des Affaires Ã©conomiques promulgua un arrÂ®tÃ© ministÃ©riel en date du 9 aoÃ»t 1974 dÃ©terminant le prix de vente au consommateur des viandes bovines et porcines .
Peu aprÃ©s la publication de cet arrÃ©tÃ© ministÃ©riel IM .B . du 14 .8 .74), un contrÃ´le fut effectuÃ© le 18 septembre 1974 dans l'exploitation commerciale du requÃ©rant par un inspecteur du MinistÃ¨re des Affaires Ã©conomiques . Selon le procÃ©s-verbal d'audition dressÃ© ce jour et signÃ© par le requÃ©rant, celui-ci admit n'avoir pas respectÃ© le prix maximum imposÃ© pour la viande porcine et avoir excÃ©dÃ© la marge commerciale autorisÃ©e . Il fit valoir qu'il s'agissait d'une erreur de sa part, excluant toute mauvaise foi et s'engagea Ã baisser immÃ©diatement ses prix . Le pro justitia adressÃ© le 26 septembre au procureur du roi par l'inspecteur mentionne que le requÃ©rant n'a pas appliquÃ© la baisse de 6,50 % prÃ©vue par l'arrÃªtÃ© ministÃ©riel du 9 aoÃ»t 1974 et qu'il a dÃ©passÃ© la marge commerciale autorisÃ©e . Par dÃ©cision du 30 septembre 1974, le procureur du roi de Louvain ordonna la fermeture provisoire de l'Ã©tablissement du requÃ©rant sous 48 heures Ã dater de la notification . La dÃ©cision faisait Ã©tat du rapport de l'inspection Ã©conomique d'oÃ¹ il ressort que le requÃ©rant a commis une infraction Ã© l'arrÃªtÃ© ministÃ©riel prÃ©citÃ© . La dÃ©cision indiquait en outre que la fermeture provisoire prendrait fin, soit le lendemain du rÃ©glement d'une amende transactionnelle de 10000 FB, soit, au plus tard, le jour du jugement pÃ©nal . Le requÃ©rant disposait de huit jours pour faire connaitre s'il acceptait l'offre transactionnelle . Le requÃ©rant reÃ§ut une lettre du procureur du 30 septembre 1974 ainsi rÃ©digÃ©e Itraductionl : Â« Par la prÃ©sente il vous est donnÃ© connaissance de la dÃ©cision par laquelle votre commerce sera provisoirement fermÃ© en application de l'article 11, 3 2, de la loi du 22 janvier 1975 . Les sanctions sÃ©vÃ©res, imposÃ©es par la loi en ras de non-application de cette dÃ©cision, mÃ©ritent votre plus particuliÃ©re attention . Le montant de la transaction proposÃ©e est fixÃ© Ã 10000 FB . Veuillez, endÃ©ans les 8 jours, virer ce montant au CCP NÂ° . . . et me faire savoir si vous acceptez la transaction . La fermeture de votre commerce sera levÃ©e le jour aprÃ©s que vous ayez effectuÃ© le paiement exigÃ© . Â» Il prÃ©tend n'avoir pas reÃ§u notification de la dÃ©cision qui aurait dÃ» y Ãªtre annexÃ©e . Il affirme que, sur base de la lettre, il pouvait tout au plus supposer qu'il y avait un rapport entre cette dÃ©cision et le contrÃ´le par l'inspection Ã©conomique dont le procÃ¨s-verbal d'audition ne lui avait pas Ã©tÃ© adressÃ© . Afin d'Ã©viter les dommages qui auraient rÃ©sultÃ© de la fermeture de son exploitation, le requArant effectua le 2 octobre le paiement de l'amende transactionnelle . Il envoya cependant au procureur du roi une lettre recommandÃ©e datÃ©e du 3 octobre 1974, dans laquelle il exprimait toutes ses rÃ©serves quant Ã une action devant le tribunal civil en recouvrement de la somme versÃ©e, augmentÃ©e de dommages-intÃ©rÃªts . Le requÃ©rant fit notamment valoir sans sa lettre que : - il n'avait pas reÃ§u copie du procÃ©s-verbal dressÃ© par les inspecteurs, - il contestait les constatations faites par ceux-ci , - il introduirait un recours en annulation de l'arrÃ©tÃ© ministÃ©riel du 9 ao0t 1974 auprÃ©s du Conseil d'Etat, vu le fait que ce dernier avait dÃ©]Ã© annulÃ© quatre arrÃªtÃ©s ministÃ©riels similaires par son arrÃªt du 5 juillet 1973 ,
- que la fermeture provisoire ne pouvait produire ses ettets en vertu de l'article 11, 2 combinÃ© avec l'article 9, Â§ 5 Ibl, de l'arrÃ©tÃ©-loi du 22 janvier 1945 que 48 heures aprÃ©s la signification de la dÃ©cision de condamnation , - il avait effectuÃ© le paiement de l'amende transactionnelle afin d'Ã©viter les dommages plus importants qui rÃ©sulteraient de la fermeture de son exploitation . Le requÃ©rant ne reÃ§ut aucune rÃ©ponse Ã sa lettre . Il signale que le Conseil d'Etat avait Ã©tÃ© saisi le 11 octobre 1974 d'une requÃªte d'un autre boucher visant Ã obtenir l'annulation de l'arrBtÃ© ministÃ©riel incriminÃ© .
Il ajoute que cet arrÃ¨tÃ© ministÃ©riel fait partie d'une longue sÃ©rie d'arrÃ©tÃ©s analogues dont les quatre premiers ont Ã©tÃ© annulÃ©s par le Conseil d'Etat et que d'autre part les tribunaux belges ont Ã l'unanimitÃ© refusÃ© d'appliquer certains d'entre eux en estimant qu'ils Ã©taient contraires aux lois et Ã la Constitution belge . H. Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant se plaint du fait qu'en vertu de l'article 11, Â§ 2, de l'arrÃ©tÃ©-loi du 22 janvier 1945 le procureur du roi puisse ordonner la fermeture provisoire de l'Ã©tablissement du contrevenant jusqu'Ã© la date Ã laquelle il est statuÃ© sur l'infraction . Il affirme qu'aucune procÃ©dure d'appel, aucune audition du contrevenant n'est prÃ©vue quant Ã cet article . En outre aucune obligation n'impose au procureur du roi de mettre l'affaire au rble du tribunal correctionnel avant l'expiration du dÃ©lai de prescription pÃ©nale qui est de trois ans . En pratiaue les affaires pÃ©nales belges sont, lorsque l'accusÃ© n'est pas arrÃ©tÃ©, entendues par les tribunaux correctionnels un Ã deux ans aprÃ©s la date de l'infraction . Le requÃ©rant affirme donc au'en faisant application de la disposhion incriminÃ©e le procureur du roi le mettait devant le choix suivant : - ou bien payer l'amende transactionnelle indue , - ou bien fermer son commerce pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e . Il allÃ©gue Ã ce sujet une violatio n - de l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention en tant que sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquement et dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial .
Il affinne en effet qu'Ã© aucun moment il n'a Ã©tÃ© entendu et que nonobstant sa demande de communication du procÃ¨s-verbal des inspecteurs du MinistÃ¨re des Affaires Ã©conomiques il lui a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ© communication des Ã©lÃ©ments sur base desquels la fermeture de son exploitation Ã©tait dÃ©cidÃ©e . D'autre part, la notification Ã lui adressÃ©e par le procureur du roi ne peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme jugement Ã©manant d'un tribunal . En outre, il n'y aurait eu aucune instruction . - de l'article 6, Â§ 2 en tant que la transaction proposÃ©e par le procureur du roi supposait sa culpabilitÃ© alors que celle-ci n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© lÃ©galement Ã©tablie . - de l'article 6, Â§ 3 (a), Ibl, Icl, (d) en tant qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© d'une maniÃ©re dÃ©taillÃ©e de la nature et de la cause de l'accusation portÃ©e contre lui et en tant qu'il n'a pas disposÃ© du temps et des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©f=nse . -92_
En effet, le procureur du roi, en dÃ©cidant que la fermeture de son Ã©tablissement orendrait cours dans les 48 heures de la notification de sa dÃ©cision, aurait rendu impossible toute dÃ©fense et toute assistance d'un avocat . D'autre pa rt ce bref dÃ©lai aurait empBchÃ© le requÃ©rant d'interroger ou faire interroger les inspecteurs du MinistÃ¨re des Affaires Ã©conomiques, prÃ©sumÃ©s tÃ©moins Ã charge, et d'obtenir la convocation des tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge . Le requÃ©rant demande l'annulation des mesures incriminÃ©es prises Ã son Ã©gard et des dispositions lÃ©gales belges sur lesquelles elles furent fondÃ©es ainsi qu'une indemnitÃ© de 100000 francs belges . II. PROCÃDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N La Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© le 18 mai 1976 de po rter la prÃ©sente requÃªte Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement mis en cause et de lui poser dive rs es questions relatives Ã la lÃ©gislation belge sur la rÃ©glementation Ã©conomique et les prix et son appliration en l'espÃ©ce . Le Gouvernement a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit avant le 19 juillet 1976 ses obse rvations sur la recevabilitÃ© . Ce tte Ã© chÃ©ance a Ã©tÃ© repoussÃ©e au 15 ao0t 1976 . Les observations du Gouvernement ont Ã©tÃ© reÃ§ues le 19 ao0t 1976 et la rÃ©ponse du requÃ©rant, datÃ©e du 13 septembre 1976, est parvenue le 16 septembre 1976 . Par le ttre du 7 octobre 1976, l'Agent du Gouvernement belge a fait divers commentaires et mises au point suggÃ©rÃ©s par le mÃ©moire en rÃ©ponse du requÃ©rant . Cette lettre a Ã©tÃ© transmise au requÃ©rant pour information . V. ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S Argumentation du Gouvernement mis en cause Quent Ã t Ã©rticie 26 de /a Convention Le Gouvernement soutient que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes qui lui Ã©taient ouvertes. Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã une dÃ©cision de la Commission (RequÃªte NÂ° 332/57, Lawless c/Irlande, Ann . 2 p . 3091, il rappelle que Â« pour se conformer aux prescriptions de l'article 26, doivent Ãªtre Ã©puisÃ©s non seulement les recours devant les tribunaux ordinaires, mais Ã©galement tout le systÃ¨me des recours juridiaires existant dans l'Etat mis en cause et prÃ©vu par la loi Â» . En l'espÃ©ce, s'il est vrai que le requÃ©rant ne disposait contre la dÃ©cision de fermeture d'aucun recours particulier, il aurait pu nÃ©anmoins faire usage de deux recours de nature Ã satisfaire l'objet de la plainte : a) Recours en annulation euprÃ©s du Conseil d'Eta t Le requÃ©rant pouvait formuler auprÃ©s du Conseil d'Etat un recours en annulation de l'arrÃ©tÃ© ministÃ©riel du 9 aoÃ»t 1974, dont la transgression a constituÃ© l'infraction poursuivie. C'est Ã tort qu'il n'a pas estimÃ© devoir le faire en arguant qu'un recours identique avait dÃ©jÃ© Ã©tÃ© formÃ© contre cet arrÃ©tÃ© par un autre boucher en raison de l'Ã©ventualitÃ© d'un reÃet du recours de cette personne pour des motifs liÃ©s Ã la capacitÃ©, la qualitÃ© et l'intÃ©rÃªt du recourant, le requÃ©rant aurait dÃ» utiliser personnellement cette voie de droit .
b) ProcÃ©dure civile en rÃ©cupÃ©retion des sommes versÃ©es et en dommages et intÃ©rÃ©ts Le requÃ©rant pouvait, airui qu'il l'admet lui-mÃ©me, introduire une action devan t un tribunal civil, en rÃ©cupÃ©ration des sommes versÃ©es et en dommages et intÃ©rÃ©ts sur base des articles 1235 et 13 82 du code civil . 2 . Quent 9/Ã©ppticebiiitÃ© de /Ã©rtic% 6 Bien que le Gouvernement considÃ©re la requÃªte irrecevable en application de l'article 26, il soumet sur ce point quelques considÃ©rations :
L'offre transactionnelle faite par le procureur constitue une proposition qu'il est loisible au contrevenant de refuser s'il prÃ©fÃ©re voir son cas soumis Ã un tribunal . En faisant cette offre, le procureur ne dÃ©cide en rien du bien-fondÃ© d'une accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale . Estimant qu'une infraction a Ã©tÃ© commise, il propose que l'action publique soit Ã©teinte par le paiement d'une somme d'argent qui ne constitue pas une peine . L'offre transactionnelle est ainsi Ã©trangÃ©re Ã© l'article 6 . La fermeture provisoire, mesure unilatÃ©rale qui peut Ãªtre ordonnÃ©e de pair avec une proposition transactionnelle ou indÃ©pendamment de celle-ci lorsque le procureur estime devoir exercer des poursuites, ne statue pas davantage sur une accusation pÃ©nale . Elle est Ã©galement Ã©trangÃ©re Ã l'article 6 .
3 . Sur les violations allÃ©guÃ©es de l'article 6 Estimant que l'article 6 dans son ensemble n'Ã©tait pas applicable aux actes et procÃ©dures incriminÃ©s, le Gouvernement n'a pas dÃ©veloppÃ© d'argumentation sur ce point .
4 . Sur la vio/etion allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 1 du Protocole additionne l La fermeture provisoire s'inscrit bien dans le contexte du deuxiÃ©me paragraphe de cette disposition : Â« mesure nÃ©cessaire pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral . Il s'agit non d'une condamnation mais d'une mesure provisoire visant Ã mettre fin au dÃ©lit . La fixation de prix maxima a Ã©tÃ© rendue nÃ©cessaire par les abus des professionnels . L'intÃ©rPt gÃ©nÃ©ral commandait que ces prix soient scrupuleusement respectÃ©s par les professionnels . En cas d'infraction, la fermeture provisoire est un remÃ©de efficace et adÃ©quat pour la faire cesser immÃ©diatement et amener le respect de l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral .
Argumentation du requÃ©ran t Quant Ã t'erticte 26 de la Convention Les recours mentionnÃ©s par le Gouvernement sont, aux yeux du requÃ©rant, totalement Ã© trangers Ã l'objet de la requÃªte . En effet, celle-ci ne vise ni au remboursement de l'amende transactionnelle ni Ã l'annulation de l'arrÃ©tÃ© ministÃ©riel dÃ©terminant les prix de vente de la viande . Elle a essentiellement pour objet l'annulation de la dÃ©cision de fermeture et l'annulation de l'article 11, Â§ 2, de l'arrÃ©tÃ©-loi du 22 janvier 1945 permettant au procureur d'ordonner la fermeture provisoire de l'Ã©tablissement du contrevenant . Elle vise en outre Ã obtenir une indemnitÃ© de 100000 FB sur base de l'article 50 de la Convention . Or, il n'existe aucun recours contre cet arrÃ©tÃ©-loi ni contre la dÃ©cision du procureur du roi .
- 94 -_
Le requÃ©rant rÃ©fute nÃ©anmoins l'assertion du Gouvernement selon laquelle il ne pourrait invoquer le recours en annulation de l'arr0tÃ© ministÃ©riel formÃ© par une autre personne physique . 2 . Quant Ã lepp/icebiiitÃ© de /brticle 6 L'offre transactionnelle faite par le procureur a, dans le cadre de l'arrÃ©tÃ©-loi du 22 janvier 1945, un caractÃ©re exceptionnel : le consentement du contrevenant, essentiel Ã toute transaction, fait ici dÃ©faut Ã raison du pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire du procureur de fermer l'entreprise en l'absence d'acquiescement . Le procureur impose donc unilatÃ©ralement une sanction, une condamnation aprÃ©s avoir estimÃ© qu'une infraction a Ã©tÃ© commise . La fermeture provisoire, qui durera environ quinze mois, peut aisÃ©ment mettre Ã nÃ©ant une entreprise . Il y a bien, en l'espÃ¨ce, dÃ©termination par le procureur du bien-fondÃ© d'une accusation pÃ©nale .
3 . Sur les violations allÃ©guÃ©es de l'article 6 Le requÃ©rant reprend ici les griefs dÃ©jÃ© Ã©noncÃ©s : la dÃ©cision de fermeture ne fait l'objet d'aucune audience par un tribunal ; elle se fait sur une simple prÃ©somption de culpabilitÃ© ; la victime n'est pas informÃ©e de la nature de l'accusation portÃ©e contre elle ; la dÃ©cision de fermeture prend effet sous 48 heures, privant la victime du temps de prÃ©parer sa dÃ©fense .
Sur la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel Le requÃ©rant conteste qu'il puisse Ã©tre de l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral d'attribuer au procureur la possibilitÃ© de fermer une entreprise, sans recours, pour une pÃ©riode pouvant excÃ©der celle d'une fermeture prononcÃ©e sur condamnation par un tribunal .
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue que l'offre transactionnelle ainsi que la dÃ©cision de fermeture provisoire de son commerce, Ã©manant toutes deux du procureur du roi, ont mÃ©connu les garanties procÃ©durales reconnues par l'article 6 de la Convention Ã toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction pÃ©nale . Il soutient encore que la dÃ©cision de fermeture provisoire a constituÃ© en l'espÃ©ce une atteinte au droit d'usage des biens non justifiÃ©e par les exigences de l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel . 2 . Le Gouvernement belge soulÃ©ve Ã cet Ã©gard l'exception de non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours et indique les moyens qui, Ã son avis, Ã©taient Ã la disposition de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Il appartient Ã la Commission d'examiner si les recours visÃ©s per le Gouvernement Ã©taient adÃ©quats, c'est-Ã©-dire de nature Ã porter rembde aux griefs du requÃ©rant (Cour Eur . D .H ., ArrÃªt StÃ¼gmÃ¼ller du 10 novembre 1969, SÃ©rie A, p . 42 Â§ 11) . Le recours en annulation ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© en l'espÃ©ce comme un recours adÃ©quat . On ne saurait exiger du requÃ©rant qui se plaint de la procÃ©dure de censure des infractions Ã la lÃ©gislation sur les prix, qu'il fasse annuler un arrÃ©tÃ© ministÃ©riel dont il ne conteste pas le principe ou dont le principe est Ã©tranger Ã la prÃ©sente contestation . Ce recours, qui a pour objet de faire disparaÃ®tre avec effet rÃ©troactif (extunc) la base de l'infraction, ne porte pas remÃ¨de aux griefs du requÃ©rant liÃ©s non Ã la nature de l'infraction mais Ã la procÃ©dure de rÃ©pression de cette infraction .
Le requÃ©rant aurait sans doute pu rÃ©clamer Ã l'Etat belge, devant les tribunaux civils, l'amende transactionnelle qu'il avait payÃ©e ainsi que des dommages . intÃ©rÃ©ts, encore que la base de cette action puisse paraitre alÃ©atoire, la loi belge n'ayant semble-t-il pas Ã©tÃ© transgressÃ©e en l'espÃ©ce . La transaction pÃ©nale Ã laquelle il prÃ©tend avoir d0 accÃ©der contre son grÃ© demeurerait nÃ©anmoins mentionnÃ©e, sinon au casier judiciaire central, du moins au casier judiciaire de son domicile et figurerait dans les bulletins de renseignements qui doivent Ãªtre joints aux dossiers rÃ©pressifs . Il en rÃ©sulte que ce moyen ne semble pas constituer davantage un recours efficace et adÃ©quat dont le requÃ©rant aurait d0 faire usage .
La requÃ©te ne doit dÃ©s lors pas Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable en application de l'article 27, 3, de la Convention . 3 . La Commission a orocÃ©dÃ© Ã un premier examen des faits et arguments soumis par les parties . Les griefs soumis par le requÃ©rant soulÃ©vent Ã son estime des problÃ©mes suffisamment complexes relativement Ã l'application de l'article 6 de la Convention et, dans une moindre mesure, l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel, pour nÃ©cessiter un examen au fond .
La question se pose en particulier de savoir si le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© contraint de payer une amende et de renoncer aux garanties d'un procÃ©s Ã©quitable, sous la menace d'un prÃ©judice matÃ©riel considÃ©rable . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ©te ne peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention et qu'elle doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable, aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© retenu . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE .
I TRANSL ATION I THE FACTS
The facts of the case as submitted by the parties in writing and as resulting from the file may be summarised as follows : The applicant, a Belgian national, was born at Leefdaal on 30 August 1914 . He is resident in Louvain where he exercises the profession of butcher . He is represented before the Commission by Mr Jean-Marie van Hille, a Barrister practising before the Ghent Court of Appeal . Under a Legislative Decree of 22 January 1945, as amended by the Economic Organisation and Prices Act of 30 July 1971, the Minister of Economic Affairs made a Ministerial Order of 9 August 1974 fixing the retail sale price of beef and pork . Shortly after the publication of this Ministerial Order (Moniteur Belge of 14 .8 .74) a check was made in the aoplicant's shop by an inspector of the Ministry of Economi c
-96_
Affairs on 18 September 1974 . According to the report of the inspection made on the same day and signed by the applicant the latter admitted that he had not complied with the maximum price imposed for pork and had exceeded the authorised retail margin . He said that he had made a mistake ; he had been acting in perfect good faith and promised to reduce his prices immediately . The inspector's report to the Public Prosecutor in Louvain on 26 September mentions that the applicant had not applied the reduction of 6 .5% prescribed by the Ministerial Order of 9 August 1974 and that he had exceeded the authorised retail margin .
By a decision of 30 September 1974 the Public Prosecutor in Louvain ordered the provisional closing of the applicant's shop within 48 hours of receiving notice of the decision . The decision referred to the economic inspector's report from which it appeared that the applicant had committed an offence contrary to the above-cited Ministerial Order . It further stated that the provisional closure would terminate either the day after payment of an agreed fine lamende transactionnelle) of 10,000 Belgian Francs or at the latest on the day of the criminal judgment . The applicant was given 8 days to state whether he accepted the fine . He received a letter from the Public Prosecutor on 30 September 1974 which read as follows : "You are hereby informed of the decision by which your shop will be provisionally closed by virtue of Section 11 (2) of the Act of 22 January 1975 . Your attention is particularly called to the very severe penalties imposed by the Act for failure to comply with this decision . The amount of the proposed compromise is fixed at 10,000 Belgian Francs .
Kindly transfer this sum to Post Office Account No . . . . within a week and tell me whether you are prepared to accept the compromise . The close of your shop will terminate the day after you make the payment required . "
He alleges that he did not receive notification of the decision which should have been attached thereto . On the basis of this letter he could only suppose that there was some connection between this decision and the check by the economic inspector whose repon had not been sent to him . In order to avoid the loss which would have followed from the closure of hi s shop the applicant paid the agreed fine on 2 October . However he sent a letter to the Public Prosecutor on 3 October 1974 in which he made his most express reservations as to an action before the Civil Courts to recover the sum paid, plus damages . In particular he argued in his letter tha t - he had not received a copy of the inspector's report, - he disputed the inspector's findings , - he would apply to the Conseil d'Etat to set aside the Ministerial Order of 9 August 1974 seeing that that court had already set aside 4 similar Ministerial Orders by its judgment of 5 July 1973 , - the provisional closure could only take effect under Section 11 (2) combined with Section 9 (5) Ibl of the Legislative Decree of 22 January 1945 48 hours after the service of the decision by which he was convicted ,
- he had paid the agreed fine in order to avoid greater loss which would have resulted from the closing of his shop . The applicant received no reply to his letter . He points out that an application by another butcher to have the Ministerial Order complained of set aside was brought before the Conseil d'Etat on 11 October 1974 . This Ministerial Order was part of a long series of similar orders the first four of which were set aside by the Conseil d'Etat and some of which moreover the Belgian courts had unanimously refused to apply on the grounds that they were contrary to law and the Belgian Constitution .
The applicant's complaints may be summaried as follows : The applicant complains that under Section 11 (2) of the Legislative Decree of 22 January 1945, the Public Prosecutor can order the provisional closure of an offender's shop until the date when the court judges the offence . He alleges that this article makes no provision for an appeal or any hearing of the person committing the offence . Moreover the Public Prosecutor is under no obligation to enter the case on the roll of the Criminal Court before the 3-year criminal limitation period expires . In practice Belgian criminal cases are heard two or three years after the offence by the Belgian Criminal Courts in cases where the accused has not been arrested . The applicant states that in applying the provision complained of the Public Prosecutor placed him before the following alternativ e - either to pay an unfair compromise fine , - or to close his shop for an indefinite period . In this connection he alleges a violation of - Article 6 (1) of the Convention in so far as he has not been given a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal . He alleges that he was not at any time given a hearing and that in spite of his application for a copy of the Ministry of Economic Affairs inspector's report he has been refused information regarding the facts on which the closure of his shop was decided .
Moreover the notification sent him by the Public Prosecutor cannot be considered as the judgment of a court . Besides, there was no judicial investigation . - Article 6(2) in so far as the compromise proposed by the Public Prosecutor was based on a presumption of his guilt whereas this had never been legally established . - Article 6 (3) lal, Ibl . Icl, (d) in so far as he was not informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and in so far as he was not given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence . The fact was that by deciding that the closure of his shop would become eHective within 48 hours of the service of his decision the Public Prosecutor had made all defence and all assistance by a lawyer impossible .
Moreover, the shortness of the period allowed prevented the applicant from examining or having examined the inspectors of the Ministry of Economic Afifairs who would presumably be witnesses against him or to obtain the attendance of the defence witnesses .
He askes that the measures complained of and the Belgian statutory provisions on which they were based should be set aside and applies for compensation in the sum of 100,000 Belgian Francs .
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N The Commission decided on 18 May 1976 to bring the application to the knowledge of the respondent Government and ask them certain questions regarding the Belgian legislation on economic organisation and prices and its application in the present case . The Government were asked to submit their written observations on admissibility before 19 July 1976 . This time-limit was extended to 15 August 1976 . The Government's observations were received on 19 August 1976 and the applicant's reply dated 13 September 1976 was received on 16 September 1976 . By a letter of 7 October 1976 the Belgian Government's Agent made various comments and corrections suggested by the applicant's observations in reply . This letter was sent to the applicant for information .
IV SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A . The respondent Government's submissions Article 26 of the Conventio n The Government maintain that the applicant has not exh8usted the available domestic remedies . Referring to the Commission's decision in Application No . 332/57, Lawless v . Ireland (Yearbook 2, p . 309) they recall that to comply with the requirements of Article 26, one must exhaust not only the remedies in the ordinary courts but also the whole system of legal remedies available under the law of the respondent State . In the instant case although it is true that the applicant had no specific appeal against the decision of closure, he could nevertheless have use of two procedures calculated to provide remedies for his complaint . a . Appeal to have the decision set aside by the Conseil d'Eta t The applicant could have appealed to the Conseil d'Etat to set aside the Ministerial Order of 9 August 1974 for the breach of which proceedings were taken against him . He was mistaken in thinking he was not required to do so because an identical appeal had already been made against this order by another butcher since in view of the possibility that the person in question might fail for reasons connected with his capacity, right to sue or absence of lawful interest the applicant should have himself made use of this remedy . b . Civil proceedings to recover the amount pai d As he himself admits the applicant could have sta rt ed an action before a civil court to recover the amount paid and damages relying on Articles 1235 and 1382 of the Civil Code .
2. App/icebiiity of Articfe 6 Although the Government consider the application inadmissible under A rt icle 26 they submit a number of arguments on this point . The compromise offer made by the Public Prosecutor was one which a person infringing the order was entitled to refuse if he preferred his case to go before a cou rt . In making the offer the Public Prosecutor was in no sense determining a crimina l
charge . Being of the opinion an offence had been commi tted he was suggesting that the prosecution should be terminated by the payment of a sum of money which did not constitute a penalty . A compromise offer thus does not fall under Article 6. Nor does the provisional closure order ( a unilateral measure which may be ordered together with a compromise offer or independently when the Prosecutor considers it his duty to take proceedings) constitute the determination of a criminal charge . It is therefore also outside the province of Article 6 .
3 . The alleged violations of Article 6 Being of the opinion that Article 6 as a whole did not apply to the acts and proceedings complained of, the Government made no submissions on this point .
4 . Alleged violation of Article I of the First Protocol The provisional closure clearly fell under paragraph 2 of this provision which refers to "laws necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" . It was not a conviction but a provisional measure to put an end to an offence . The fixing of maximum prices had been made necessary by the shopkeepers' abusive practices and the general interest required that these prices should be scrupulously observed by the shopkeepers . Where offences are committed provisional closure is an effective and adequate remedy to put an end to them at once and ensure respect for the general interest .
B . The applicant's submissions 1.
Article 26 of the Convention
In the applicant's opinion the remedies referred to by the Government have nothing to do with the object of the application . For this is aimed neither at the repayment of the agree fine nor the se tt ing aside of the Ministerial Order fixing the sale price of ineat . Its essential object is to set aside the decision of closure and have declared void Section 11 ( 2) of the Legislative Decree of 22 January 1945 allowing the Public Prosecutor to order the provisional closure of the shop of a person commi tt ing the offence . Its other object is to obtain compensation of 100,000 Belgian Francs under Article 50 of the Convention . In fact there is no remedy against this legislative decree nor against the Public Prosecutor's decision . Nevert heless the applicant disputes the Government's asse rt ion that he could not rely on an application to set aside the Ministerial Order introduced by another individual .
2. App/icabiiity of Article 6 The compromise offer made by the Public Prosecutor under the Legislative Decree of 22 January 1945 is of an exceptional nature : the consent of the person committing the offence, an essential element in every compromise, is here absent owing to the Public Prosecutor's discretionary power of closing the shop without the shopkeeper's consent . This meant that the Public Prosecutor was unilaterally imposing a sanction, i .e . a conviction, having come to the conclusion that an offence had been committed . The provisional closure which would last about 15 months might easily destroy a business . In the instant case there was indeed the determination of a criminal charge by the Public Prosecutor .
3 . Alleged violations of Article 6 The applicant here repeats his earlier complaints : the closure decision is not made after a hearing before a court ; it is based on a simple presumption of guilt ; the victim is not informed of the nature of the charge against him ; the closure decision takes effect within 48 hours depriving the victim of the time required to prepare his defence . 4 . Alleged violation of Article I of the First Protocol The applicant disputes that it could be in the general interest to give the Public Prosecutor the power to close a business without appeal for a period which might exceed that of a closure imposed under a conviction by a court .
THE LA W 1 . The applicant alleges that the compromise offer and the decision of provisional closure of his business both of which were made by the Public Prosecutor did not comply with the procedural guarantees conferred by Article 6 of the Convention on everyone accused of a criminal offence . He further maintains that the decision of provisional closure constituted in the instant case a breach of the right to the enjoyment of one's possessions not justified by the requirements of the general interest within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol . 2 . In this connection the Belgian Government raise the defence of failure to exhaust the domestic remedies and point out those which in their opinion were available to the applicant . The Commission must therefore examine whether the remedies mentioned by the Belgian Government were adequate, i .e . of a nature to satisfy the applicant's complaints (European Court of Human Rights, StdgmÃ¼ller judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A, p . 42, para . 11) . The application to set aside could not in the instant case be considered an adequate remedy . It could not be expected of the applicant, who is complaining of the procedure for dealing with offences against the legislation on prices, that he applies for a Ministerial Order to be set aside whose basic principle he does not question or whose principle has nothing to do with the present dispute . This procedure the object of which would be to annul retrospectively the legislation on which the offence is based does not provide a remedy for the applicant's complaints which are based not on the nature of the offence but on the procedure for dealing with it .
Doubtless the applicant could have sued the Belgian State before the civil courts for the return of the agreed fine and for damages although the basis of this action seems somewhat uncertain as it would not appear that Belgian law has been infringed . Nevertheless, the compromise of the criminal action which he had been obliged to accept against his will would remain entered not in the Central Criminal Register but in the Criminal Register of his place of residence and would be one of the matters which are required to be attached to criminal files for information . It follows that this too would not appear to be an effective and adequate remedy of which the applicant should have availed himself .
The application is not therefore inadmissible under Article 27 (3 ) of the Convention . 3 . The Commission has undertaken a preliminary examination of the facts and arguments adduced by the parties . In its opinion the applicant's complaints raise sufficiently complex issues with regard to the application of Article 6 of the Convention and to a lesser extent Article 1 of the First Protocol to require an examination of the merits . In particular it raises the question of whether the applicant was not forced to pay a fine and waive the guarantees of a fair trial under the threat of suffering a considerable material loss . It follows that the application cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention, and that in the absence of any other ground of inadmissibility it must be declared admissible . Now therefore the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE :
- 102-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 10/03/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 11
 l'article 11
 l'article 9
 l'article 11
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 26
 l'article 26
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 1
 l'article 11
 l'article 50
 l'article 6
 l'article 1
 l'article 6
 l'article 1
 l'article 27
 l'article 6
 l'article 1
 l'article 27