Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19811217-836178
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 08:51:45+00:00
Document Index: 62889965

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 180", "l'article 6", "l'article 207", "l'article 6", "l'article 207", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 207", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8361/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-12-17;8361.78 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-2) INFORMATION DANS LE PLUS COURT DELAI, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATION/ REQUETE NÂ° 8361/78 X . v/the NETHERLAND S X . c/PAYS-BA S DECISION of 17 December 1981 on the admissibility of the applicatio n
DÃCISION du 17 dÃ©cembre 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artlcle 6, paragraph 2 of the Convenflon : The judicial authorities . in conceding television interviews, may ce rtainly disclose that cdminal proceedings against a particular person have been instituted, but in view of the risk of misinterpretation by the public, should avoid making statements which could lead rhe public to believe that this pa rticular person is guilty . Arnlcle 6, peragraph 3 (a) of the Conventlon : This provision does not require the observance of particular jormalities of informing the accused of the nature of the charges held against him . Information given, even verbally. to the accused and his counsel a jew days after the preliminary investigations is suffcient .
Artlcle 6, parag aphe 2, de la Conventlon : En accordant une interview tÃ©lÃ©visÃ©e, les autorltÃ©s judiciaires peuvent certes rÃ©vÃ©ler qu'une information pÃ©nale a Ã©tÃ© ouverte cont re une personne dÃ©terminÃ©e mais, vu le risque de malentendu au sein du public, doivent se garder de rien dire qui puisse donner Ã penser que cette personne est coupable . Arltcle 6, peraaraphe 3, Utt. a), de la Conventlon : Cette disposition n'impose aucune forme particuliÃ¨re quant d la maniÃ¨re dont l'accusÃ© doit Ãªtre informÃ©. Une information donnÃ©e, mÃªme verbalement, Ã l'accusÃ© ou Ã son conseil quelques jours aprÃ¨a l'ouverture de l'instruction prÃ©liminaire est suffisante .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 44 )
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a citizen of the Netherlands, born in 1911 and residing in W . He is represented by Mr Hammerstein, a lawyer practising in Heerlen . From the statements and documents submitted it appears that o n
. . . June 1978 the Public Prosecutor at the Regional Court in The Hague demanded the Investigating Judge to open a preliminary judicial investigation against the applicant whom he suspected of having misappropriated a sum of 136,000 guilders or in any case a certain sum of money belonging to the Netherlands L . Fund and/or the C . Foundation or to others . Subsequently investigatory proceedings were opened against the applican t On . . . June 1978 the houses belonging to the applicant, as well as the offices of several charitable organisations, of which he was an official, were searched . A number of objects were seized, in particular, the administrative documents of the L . Fund and of the C . Foundation . On the same day the Public Prosecutor informed a relative of the applicant by telephone of the suspicion against the latter . At the time of the seizure the applicant was .on holiday abroad . On . . . June 1978 his lawyer had an interview with the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Judge . They assured him that the hearing of the applicant was not urgent and that there was no need to ask for his immediate return . By letter of . . . June 1978 the lawyer requested the Public Prosecutor to be given a copy of his application to the Investigating Judge to open a preliminary judicial investigation against the applicant . This request was refused by the Investigating Judge . In a television interview of . . . June 1978 the Public Prosecutor referred to an earlier television programme of . . .April 1978 in which the applicant, in his capacity of President of the L . Fund, had been interviewed about the question what had happened to the 2,000,000 guilders which had been collected by the Fund, but of which only 700,000 guilders had arrived in the leprosy village A . in Columbia . He further mentioned that he had applied to the Investigating Judge for the opening of a preliminary judicial investigation and that the latter, considering that there could be a question of a punishable act, had ordered a house search . When asked about the nature of that act the Public Prosecutor stated that it concerned a suspicion of embezzlement of about 150,000 guilders and of maladministration of the funds of the C . Foundation and the L . Fund .
On the same day the applicant's lawyer protested against the above statements to the Attorney General at The Hague Cou rt of Appeal pointing out that after the Public Prosecutor's statements the public considered the applicant as already being convicted . The treasurer of the C . Foundation and the L . Fund also wrote a letter to the A tt orney General on . . . June 1978 contptaining about the Public Prosecutor's statements which, in his opinion, had discredited the organisation and the members of the Boards . On . . . July 1978 the applicant's lawyer requested the Regional Cou rt in The Hague to order the closure of the investigation in accordance with Section 180 (2) of the Code of Cri minal Procedure . He stated that it appeared from an expe rt opinion which the Public Prosecutor received on . . . June 1978 and which apparently constituted the basis for the latter's application to the Investigating Judge to open a prelimina ry judicial investigation that he was either guilty of embezzlement which would make such investigation without purpose and would only unnecessarily prolong the procedure ; or, that he was not guilty of the alleged acts, which would mean that there was no basis for the investigation . In a personal le tt er dated . . . July 1978 and addressed to the Minister of Justice the applicant protested both against the publicity by the news media, stating that it was improper that a judicial authority, without any concrete evidence, publicly accused a person who was not even infornied of the accusation against hint and had not had the possibili ty of defending himself ; in the eyes of the public he was therefore already convicted . He fu rt her requested the Minister to remove the Public Prosecutor concerned from the case . The Regional Court in The Hague heard the applicant on . . . August 1978. At the hearing the appticant's lawyer invoked Articles 6 (1) and (2), 3 (a) and (b) . and 8 of the Convention . He argued that the television inte rv iew of the Public Prosecutor was in violation of Articles 6 (1), (2) and (3) of the Convention ; furt hermore that Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure interfered with the applicant's right under Article 6 (3) in that it was inadmissible that a person against whom a p re limina ry judicial investigation had been opened had to wait until the date of his hearing before he could learn of the facts of which he was being suspected and which formed the basis for the prelliminary investigation . He fu rt her complained that the State accountant who had been appointed in order to make a provisional re po rt had not even contacted the t reasurer and the accountant of the foundations as prontised . If he had done so, some substantial errors could have been avoided . The lawyer fu rt her stated that the Board of the C . Foundation had relieved the applicant from reimbursing a loan of 150,000 Guilders as a kin d
of pension, since the latter had worked for C . and other foundations for many years for a small remuneration . This, in his opinion, could not be considered as fraud ; if the Public Prosecutor was of the opposite opinion, he should take the case to court as soon as possible . The applicant would then certainly be acquitted . He finally pointed out that the Public Prosecutor had no competence to search for other possible, but yet unknown, facts in the seized material . In his view, the court should therefore close the investigation shortly . By decision of . . . September 1978 the Court rejected the applicant's request, stating that no such conclusion could be drawn from the expert opinion of the State accountant as this had only a provisional character . As to the question why no copy of the public Prosecutor's initial application to the Investigating Judge had been handed out to the applicant the Court stated that according to Section 207 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Judge indeed hands out such a copy at the first hearing but that no hearing had taken place so far ; moreover, although a copy might be delivered even before the hearing by the Investigating Judge the latter can decide otherwise . The Court concluded that Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention had not been violated, since these Articles did not contain other principles than those already recognised under Netherlands law . The applicant's request to set a very short time limit for the accomplishment of the expert opinion by the State accountant was rejected on the ground that the objects seized were so numerous that the time limit which had been fixed for the termination of the expert opinion (i .e . . . . December 1978) was reasonable . In the meantime, on . . . September 1978, a copy of the application of the Public Prosecutor to the Investigating Judge dated . . . June 1978 had been handed out to the applicant . By letter of . . . November 1978 the Minister replied to the applicant's above letter of . . . July 1978 that in an earlier television interview of . . . April 1978 the applicant and other members of the Board of the L . Foundation had not been able to remove the doubts which had arisen as to the expenditure of the proceeds of the collection allocated to a leprosy village in Columbia, but, on the contrary, had reinforced them . Consequently, this had caught the interest of the news media . The subsequent preliminary judicial investigation could therefore not remain hidden from the press . As a normal consequence, after all that had already been published-partly with the applicant's own collaboration-the Public Prosecutor had given some information to the news media about the opening of the investigation and the reasons therefor . By letter of . . . November 1978 the Attorney General replied to the above letters by the applicant's lawyer and by the tre asurer of the Fund and Foundation in the same terms as the Minister had done . In the Attorney General' s
opinion the Public Prosecutor had only stressed that an investigation was being carried out and that there was a suspicion against the applicant with regard to the activities of the Fund and of other foundations .
THE LAW (Extract ) 1 . The applicant has complained that, contra ry to Article 6 (3) (a) of the Convention, he has not been promptly informed in detail of the nature of the suspicion against him . He has also alleged that, only on . . . September 1978 he received a copy of the Public Prosecutor's application for a prelimina ry judicial investigation, dated . . . June 1978 . The respondent Government have submi tt ed that the Public Prosecutor's application should not in itself be regarded as a formal charge of a criminal offence within the meaning of the Article . In their view, it was for the Investigating Judge to determine when he should send a copy of that application to the suspect, since he was only under an obligation to provide the latter with such a copy when being questioned (Section 207 (1) of the Code on Criminal Procedure), although he might have done so at an earlier stage ( Section 207 (2) of the Code) . They further took the view that when the applicant's house and a house belonging to the foundation of which the applicant was a director, were searched, an act was performed vis-Ã -vis the applicant such as to place him in the position of a person charged with a criminal offence within the meaning of Article 6 (3) . The applicant has held that it appeared from the system and histo ry of the law that the legislator had intended to compel the Public Prosecutor to describe, in the application for a prelimina ry judicial investigation, as carefully as possible the offender and offence commi tted, so as to limit the investigation by the Investigating Judge . In his opinion, since the law sta rted from the principle that the suspect has to be informed of the nature and extent of the suspicion against him, Section 207 (1) of the Code interfered with this principle . Article 6 (3) inter alia provides that eve ry one charged with a criminal ott-ence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (Art . 6 (3) (a)) and to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (Art . 6 (3) (b)) . The Commission observes that the question whether A rt icle 6 (3) being part of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 as a whole is also applicable to prelimina ry investigations has not yet been answered . It can also remain unanswered in the present case . -41-
For even assuming that Article 6 (3) is also applicable to the present application, the applicant's complaint has to be rejected for the following reason . The Commission notes that on the Public Prosecutor's application dated . . . June 1978 the Investigating Judge opened a preliminary investigation . On . . . June 1978 the applicant's house and a house belonging to the foundation of which he was a director were searched . In the absence of the applicant some members of his family were informed by the judicial authorities involved about the purpose of the action . The next day the applicant's lawyer had interviews with the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Judge . According to the Government, on that occasion the lawyer was informed that a preliminary judicial investigation had been instituted against the applicant and was told of the nature of the suspicions against the applicant and the reasons therefore . The applicant's lawyer, however, denied that the Investigating Judge had informed him orally of the nature and reasons for the accusation . Be that as it may, the Commission considers that at least since . . . June or on the following day the applicant and his counsel were informed about the fact that preliminary investigations had been opened against the former . Although the exact contents of the Public Prosecutor's application for the preliminary investigation may not have been known to them, the Commission has previously held that Article 6 (3) (a) does not require the observance of certain particular formalities of informing the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (Applications Nos . 3163/67 and 7899/77, not published) . Assuming that Article 6 (3) (a) is also applicable as regards preliminary investigations, this rule would be equally valid in the present case . Moreover, on . . . July 1978 the applicant received a copy of the Public Prosecutor's claim to have the members of the Board, including the applicant, of the Netherlands L . Fund and the C . Foundation removed for financial mismanagement . The document made reference to the opening of preliminary investigations against the applicant being suspected of the embezzlement of 136,000 guilders . It further appears that on . . . August 1978 in the proceedings before the Regional Court in The Hague concerning the applicant's request for the closure of the preliminary investigations his counsel explicitly referred to this suspicion . In view of the above considerations the Commission is of the opinion that very shortly after the opening of the preliminary judicial investigation the applicant was well aware of the reasons for the suspicion against him . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 2 . The appplicant has further complained that the television interview of the Public Prosecutor constituted an interference with his right unde r
Article 6 (2) of the Convention providing that eve ry one charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law . The Commission has previously held that A rt icle 6 (2) may be violated by public otiicials if they declare that somebody is responsible for criminal acts without a cou rt having found so . According to the Commission, this does not mean, of course, that the authorities may not inform the public about c ri minal investigations . They do not violate A rticle 6 (2) if they state that a suspicion exists, that people have been arrested, that they have confessed etc . What is excluded, however, is a forntal declaration that somebody is guilty (Decision on admissibility of Application No . 7986/77, Petra Krause v . Switzerland, Decisions and Repo rt s 13, p . 73) . However, the Commission stresses that, in its view, public authorities, in particular those involved in criminal investigations and proceedings, should be most careful when making statements in public, if at all, about matters under investigation and on the persons concerned thereby, in order to avoid as much as possible that these statements could be misinterpreted by the public and possibly lead to the applicant's innocence being called into question even before being tried . As far as the declarations on television by the Public Prosecutor in the present case are concerned, the Commission a tt aches part icular import ance to their wording . This interview was a follow-up to an earlier television prograntme of . . . April 1978 in which the applicant, in his capacity as President of the L . Fund, had been interviewed about the question what had happened to the two million guilders which had been collected by the Fund and of which only seven hundred thousand guilders had been received by the leprosy village A . in Columbia . Insofar as the applicant was concerned the Public Prosecutor stated that the Investigating Judge suspected him of embezzlement of about a hundred and fifty thousand guilders . In this context it is evident that the Public Prosecutor wanted to inform the public about the criminal investigation in relation to the destiny of the proceeds of the collection for the leprosy village to which so many people had contributed . The information about a criminal investigation against the applicant was pa rt thereof. In these circumstances the Commission finds that the statements of the Public Prosecutor in no way interfered with the principle of presumption of innocence . It follows that this pa rt of the application is again manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 ( 2) of the Convention .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAIT (Extrait ) Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant des Pays-Bas, nÃ© en 1911 et habitant W . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Mâ¢ Hammerstein, avocat Ã Heerlen . Des documents produits et des exposÃ©s, il ressort que le . . juin 1978, le parquet du tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye demanda au juge d'instruction d'ouvrir une information prÃ©paratoire contre le requÃ©rant, qu'il soupÃ§onnait d'avoir dÃ©tournÃ© une somme de 136 000 florins ou, en tous cas, une certaine somme appartenant au Fonds L . pour les Pays-Bas et/ou Ã la Fondation C . ou Ã des tiers . Par la suite, une informa ti on fut ouverte contre le requÃ©rant . Le . . . juin 1978, une perquisition eut lieu dans les maisons appartenant au requÃ©rant, ainsi que dans les bureaux de plusieurs organismes de bienfaisance dont il Ã©tait membre directeur . Divers objets furent saisis, notamment les dossiers administratifs du Fonds L . et de la Fondation C . Le mÃªme jour, le parquet informait par tÃ©lÃ©phone un parent du requÃ©rant des soupÃ§ons pesant sur ce dernier . A l'Ã©poque de la saisie, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait en vacances Ã l'Ã©tranger. Le . . juin 1978, son avocat eut un entretien avec le parquet et le juge d'instruction, qui l'assurÃ¨rent qu'il n'Ã©tait pas urgent d'entendre le requÃ©rant ni nÃ©cessaire de lui demander de rent rer immÃ©diatement . Par lettre du . . juin 1978, l'avocat demanda au parquet de lui remettre copie des rÃ©quisitions adressÃ©es au juge d'instruction en vue de l'ouverture d'une information contre le requÃ©rant . Le juge d'instruction refusa d'accÃ©der Ã cette demande . Dans un entretien tÃ©lÃ©visÃ© le . . juin 1978, le reprÃ©sentant du parquet s e rÃ©fÃ©ra Ã une prÃ©cÃ©dente Ã©mission de tÃ©lÃ©vision, en date du . . avril 1978, au cours de laquelle, en sa qualitÃ© de prÃ©sident du Fonds L ., le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© sur 1'utilisation des deux millions de florins rassemblÃ©s par le Fonds mais dont 700 000 seulement Ã©taient arrivÃ©s au village de lÃ©preux de A . en Colombie . Le parquet indiqua en outre avoir demandÃ© au juge d'instruction d'ouvrir une information et que ce dernier, estimant qu'il pouvait y avoir eu acte dÃ©lictueux, avait ordonnÃ© une perquisition domiciliaire . InterrogÃ© sur la nature de cet acte, le reprÃ©sentant du parquet dÃ©clara que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir dÃ©toumÃ© 150 000 florins environ et mal gÃ©rÃ© les avoirs de la Fondation C . et du Fonds L. -qq-
Le mÃªme jour, l'avocat du requÃ©rant protesta contre ces dÃ©clarations devant le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de La Haye en soulignant qu'aprÃ¨s les dÃ©clarations du parquet, le public considÃ©rait que le requÃ©rant avait dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable . Le trÃ©sorier de la Fondation C . et du Fonds L . Ã©crivit Ã©galement au procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral le . . juin 1978 pour se plaindre des dÃ©clarations du parquet qui, Ã son avis, avaient discrÃ©ditÃ© l'organisation et les membres des bureaux directeurs . Le . . juillet 1978, l'avocat du requÃ©rant demanda au tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye d'ordonner la clÃ´ture de l'instruction conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 180, paragraphe 2 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Il dÃ©clara qu'Ã partir de l'expertise reÃ§ue par le parquet le . . juin 1978 et qui semble constituer le fondement des rÃ©quisitions adressÃ©es par le parquet au juge d'instruction en vue de l'ouverture d'une information, il existait deux possibilitÃ©s : ou le requÃ©rant Ã©tait coupable des actes allÃ©guÃ©s, ce qui rendait sans objet l'information en question et ne faisait que prolonger inutilement la procÃ©dure, ou il ne l'Ã©tait pas, ce qui Ã´terait tout fondement Ã l'instruction . Dans une lettre personnelle du . . juillet 1978, adressÃ©e au ministre de la Justice, le requÃ©rant protestait contre cette publicitÃ© par voie de presse, dÃ©clarant qu'il Ã©tait abusif qu'une instance judiciaire accuse publiquement et sans preuve tangible une personne qui n'Ã©tait mÃªme pas informÃ©e de l'accusation portÃ©e contre elle et n'avait pas eu la possibilitÃ© de se dÃ©fendre ; aux yeux du public, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait donc dÃ©jÃ coupable . Il priait en outre le ministre de dessaisir le parquet de l'affaire . Le tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye entendit le requÃ©rant le . . aoÃ»t 1978 . A l'audience, l'avocat du requÃ©rant invoqua les articles 6, paragraphes 1 et 2, 3 (a) et (b) et 8 de la Convention . Il fit valoir que l'entretien tÃ©lÃ©visÃ© du reprÃ©sentant du parquet heurtait l'article 6, paragraphes 1, 2 et 3 de la Convention ; qu'en outre l'article 207 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale porte atteinte au droit que garantit au requÃ©rant l'article 6, paragraphe 3 car il est inadmissible qu'une personne Ã l'Ã©gard de qui une information a Ã©tÃ© ouverte doive attendre jusqu'Ã l'audience pour Ãªtre informÃ©e des faits dont elle est soupÃ§onnÃ©e et qui constituent le fondement mÃªme de l'instruction . Il se plaignit en outre que l'expert comptable nommÃ© pour Ã©tablir un rapport provisoire n'ait mÃªme pas pris contact, comme promis, avec le trÃ©sorier et le comptable des organisations concernÃ©es . S'il l'avait fait, de graves erreurs auraient pu Ãªtre Ã©vitÃ©es . L'avocat dÃ©clara en outre que le Bureau de la Fondation C . avait libÃ©rÃ© le requÃ©rant du remboursement d'un emprunt de 150 000 florins, afin de lui servir un genre de pension, le requÃ©rant ayant, plusieurs annÃ©es durant, travaillÃ© pour C . et d'autres fondations contre une faible rÃ©munÃ©ration .
L'avocat estimait que cela ne pouvait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme une escroquerie mais si le parquet Ã©tait d'avis contraire, il devait au plus tÃ´t saisir un tribunal . Le requÃ©rant serait alors certainement acquittÃ© . L'avocat soulignait enfin que le parquet n'avait pas compÃ©tence pour rechercher dans le matÃ©riel saisi des faits possibles mais non encore connus. A son avis, le tribunal devait donc ordonner rapidement la clÃ´ture de l'instruction . Par dÃ©cision du . . septembre 1978 . le tribunal rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant en indiquant qu'on ne pouvait tirer aucune conclusion de l'expertise faite par l'expert comptable, dont l'avis n'avait qu'un caractÃ¨re provisoire . Sur la question de savoir pourquoi aucune copie des rÃ©quisitions adressÃ©es au juge d'instruction n'avait Ã©tÃ© remise au requÃ©rant, le tribunal prÃ©cisa que l'article 207, paragraphe 1 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale oblige le juge d'instruction Ã remettre cette copie Ã la premiÃ¨re audience mais que jusqu'alors . en l'espÃ¨ce . aucune audience n'avait eu lieu ; qu'en outre, mÃªme si la copie peut Ãªtre remise avant l'audience par le juge d'instruction, celui-ci peut en dÃ©cider autrement . Le tribunal en conclut qu'il n'y avait pas eu violation des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention, ces dispositions ne renfermant pas d'autres principes que ceux dÃ©jÃ consacrÃ©s par le droit nÃ©erlandais . La demande prÃ©sentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant pour qu'un dÃ©lai trÃ¨s court soit fixÃ© Ã l'expert comptable pour prÃ©senter son avis fut rejetÃ©e : les objets saisis Ã©taient si nombreux que le dÃ©lai fixÃ© pour le dÃ©pÃ´t de l'expertise (soit le . . dÃ©cembre 1979) Ã©tait raisonnable . Entre-temps, le . . septembre 1978, copie des rÃ©quisitions adressÃ©es le juin 1978 par le parquet au juge d'instruction avait Ã©tÃ© remise au requÃ©rant . Par lettre du . . novembre 1978, le ministre rÃ©pondit Ã la lettre prÃ©citÃ©e , adressÃ©e par le requÃ©rant le . . juillet 1978, que dans un entretien tÃ©lÃ©visÃ© du . . avril 1978 le requÃ©rant et d'autres membres du Bureau de la Fondation L . n'avaient pas Ã©tÃ© en mesure de lever les doutes existant sur l'utilisation du produit de la collecte destinÃ©e Ã un village de lÃ©preux en Colombie, mais les avaient au contraire renforcÃ©s . En consÃ©quence, l'affaire avait suscitÃ© l'intÃ©rÃªt de la presse . L'ouverture ultÃ©rieure de l'information ne pouvait donc demeurer cachÃ©e Ã la presse . Et il Ã©tait normal qu'aprÃ¨s tout ce qui avait dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© publiÃ© - en partie avec la collaboration du requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme - le parquet ait dÃ» donner quelques informations Ã la presse sur l'ouverture de l'information et ses raisons . Par lettre du . . novembre 1978, le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral rÃ©pondit aux lettres de l'avocat du requÃ©rant et du trÃ©sorier du Fonds et de la Fondation dans les mÃªmes termes que le ministre . Selon le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral . le parquet avait seulement indiquÃ© qu'une information Ã©tait en cours et que des soupÃ§ons pesaient sur le requÃ©rant quant aux activitÃ©s du Fonds et d'autres Fondations .
EN DROIT (Extrait) 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que, contrairement Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (a) de la Convention, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© dans le plus court dÃ©lai et d'une maniÃ¨re dÃ©taillÃ©e de la nature des soupÃ§ons le concernant . Il prÃ©tend Ã©galement que ce n'est que le . . septembre 1978 qu'il reÃ§ut copie des rÃ©quisitions du parquet du . . juin 1978 tendant Ã l'ouverture d'une infovnation pÃ©nale . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que la demande du parquet ne doit pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e en soi comme une accusation formelle d'une infraction pÃ©nale, au sens de l'article 6 . Selon lui, c'est au juge d'instruction qu'il appartient de fixer le moment oÃ¹ il doit adresser copie de ces rÃ©quisitions au suspect . puisqu'il n'est tenu de le faire que lorsque le suspect est entendu (article 207, paragraphe 1 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale), mÃªme s'il peut le faire plus tÃ´t (article 207, paragraphe 2 du Code) . Le Gouvernement est en outre d'avis que, lorsqu'il y a eu perquisition au domicile du requÃ©rant et dans une maison appartenant Ã la Fondation que dirige le requÃ©rant, un acte a Ã©tÃ© accompli Ã son Ã©gard qui le met dans la situation d'une personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction pÃ©nale, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 . Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'il ressort du systÃ¨me et de l'histoire de la lÃ©gislation pertinente que le lÃ©gislateur avait l'intention d'obliger le parquet Ã dÃ©crire aussi soigneusement que possible le dÃ©linquant et l'infraction commise dans les rÃ©quisitions d'ouverture d'une information, de faÃ§on Ã circonscrire l'instruction requise du magistrat instructeur. Selon le requÃ©rant, puisque le droit part du principe que le suspect doit Ãªtre informÃ© de la nature et de l'ampleur des soupÃ§ons le concernant, l'article 207, paragraphe 1 porte atteinte Ã ce principe . L'article 6, paragraphe 3 stipule notamment que toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction a le droit d'Ãªtre informÃ©e dans le plus court dÃ©lai, dans une langue qu'elle comprend et d'une maniÃ¨re dÃ©taillÃ©e, de la nature et de la cause de l'accusation portÃ©e contre elle (article 6, paragraphe 3(a)) et de disposer du temps et des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense (article 6, paragraphe 3(b)) . La Commission remarque que n'a pas encore Ã©tÃ© tranchÃ©e la question de savoir si l'article 6, paragraphe 3, qui est un Ã©lÃ©ment du droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable garanti par l'article 6 dans son ensemble, s'applique Ã©galement Ã l'instruction prÃ©paratoire . La question peut Ã©galement demeurer sans rÃ©ponse en l'espÃ¨ce . En effet, Ã supposer mÃªme que l'article 6, paragraphe 3 soit applicable Ã la prÃ©sente requÃªte, le grief du requÃ©rant doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© pour la raison suivante .
--07-
La Commission relÃ¨ve que c'est sur rÃ©quisitions du parquet en date du juin 1978 que le juge d'instruction a ouvert une information . Le . . juin 1978 , le domicile du requÃ©rant et une maison appartenant Ã la Fondation qu'il dirige ont fait l'objet d'une perquisition . En l'absence du requÃ©rant, certains membres de sa famille ont Ã©tÃ© informÃ©s par les autoritÃ©s judiciaires compÃ©tentes de l'objet de la procÃ©dure . Le lendemain, l'avocat du requÃ©rant a eu des entretiens avec le parquet et le juge d'instruction . Selon le Gouvernement, c'est Ã cette occasion que l'avocat a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© de l'ouverture d'une instruction prÃ©paratoire contre le requÃ©rant et que lui furent indiquÃ©s la nature et les motifs des soupÃ§ons qui pesaient sur le requÃ©rant . L'avocat nie cependant que le juge d'instruction l'ait informÃ© verbalement de la nature et de la cause de l'accusation . Quoiqu'il en soit, la Commission estime qu'au moins depuis le . . juin ou le lendemain, le requÃ©rant et son conseil Ã©taient informÃ©s du fait qu'une instruction prÃ©paratoire Ã©tait ouverte contre le requÃ©rant . Il se peut qu'ils n'aient pas connu la teneur exacte des rÃ©quisitions du parquet mais la Commission a dÃ©jÃ dÃ©clarÃ© que l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (a) n'exige pas le respect de certaines formes particuliÃ¨res pour informer l'accusÃ© de la nature et de la cause de l'accusation portÃ©e contre lui (RequÃªte nÂ° 3163/67 et 7899/77, non publiÃ©es) . A supposer que l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (a) soit Ã©galement applicable Ã l'instruction prÃ©paratoire . cette rÃ¨gle vaudrait Ã©galement en l'espÃ¨ce . En outre, le . . juillet 1978, le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u copie de la demande du parquet tendant Ã faire destituer, pour mauvaise gestion financiÃ¨re, les membres du bureau directeur (dont le requÃ©rant) du Fonds L . pour les Pays-Bas et de la Fondation C . Le document faisait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã l'ouverture d'une information contre le requÃ©rant, soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir dÃ©tournÃ© 136 000 florins . Il apparaÃ®t en outre que le . . aoÃ»t 1978, dans la procÃ©dure devant le tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye Ã propos de la demande de clÃ´ture de l'instruction prÃ©paratoire, prÃ©sentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, l'avocat a expressÃ©ment fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã ce soupÃ§on . Ceci Ã©tant, la Commission est d'avis que trÃ¨s peu aprÃ¨s l'ouverture de l'instruction prÃ©paratoire, le requÃ©rant avait connaissance des raisons pour lesquelles il Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© . Il en dÃ©coule que la requÃªte est, sur ce point, manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre que l'entretien tÃ©lÃ©visÃ© du reprÃ©sentant du parquet ait portÃ© atteinte au droit que lui garantit l'article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention, selon lequel toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction est prÃ©sumÃ©e innocente jusqu'Ã ce que sa culpabilitÃ© ait Ã©tÃ© lÃ©galement Ã©tablie . La Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il peut y avoir violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 . lorsque des membres d'une autoritÃ© dÃ©clarent qu'une personne est coupable d'une infraction sans qu'un tribunal n'en ait ainsi dÃ©cidÃ© . Selon
elle, il ne s'ensuit Ã©videmment pas que les autoritÃ©s doivent s'abstenir d'infornter le public des enquÃªtes pÃ©nales en cours . Elles ne mÃ©connaissent pas l'article 6, paragraphe 2 en dÃ©clarant qu'il existe des soup Ã§ ons, que certaines personnes ont Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©lÃ©es, qu'elles ont fait des aveux, etc . . . Ce qui, par conlre, doit Ãªtre exclu, c'est une dÃ©claration formelle qu'une personne est coupable ( DÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte nÂ° 7986/77, Petra Krause c/Suisse, D .R . 13, p . 73) . Cependant, la Commission souligne qu'Ã son avis les auto ri tÃ©s, surtout celles qui s'occupent d'enquÃªtes et de procÃ©dures pÃ©nales, doivent se montrer trÃ¨s prudentes lorsqu'elles font des dÃ©clarations publiques sur des questions e ncoursd'it elspronquieftntl'bj,adÃ©vierut que possible que ces dÃ©clarations soient mal interprÃ©tÃ©es par le pubtic et conduisent Ã mettre en question l'innocence du requÃ©rant avant mÃªme qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© . Quant aux dÃ©clarations tÃ©lÃ©visÃ©es du reprÃ©sentant du parqtiet en l'espÃ¨ce . la Comntission attache une importance particuliÃ¨re Ã leur libellÃ© . Cet entreticn faisail suite Ã une Ã©mission tÃ©lÃ©visÃ©e du . . avril 1978, oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant, en sa qualitÃ© de prÃ©sident du Fonds L ., avait Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© sur le sort des deux millions de flo ri ns rassemblÃ©s par le Fonds et dont 700 000 seulement avaient Ã©tÃ© re Ã§ us par le village de lÃ©preux de A . en Colombie . Pour ce qui est du requÃ©rant, le reprÃ©sentant du parquet dÃ©clara que le juge d'instruction le soupÃ§ onnait d'avoir dÃ©tournÃ© quelque 150 000 florins . .
Dans ce contexte, il est Ã©vident que le parquet voulait informer le public de l'enquÃªte pÃ©nale liÃ©e Ã l'utilisation du produit de la collecte destinÃ©e au village de lÃ©preux et Ã laquelle tant de gens avaient contribuÃ© . L'information concernant une instruction pÃ©nale ouverte contre le requÃ©rant en faisait partie . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime que les dÃ©clarations du parquet n'ont nullement portÃ© atteinte au pri ncipe .,de;la prÃ©somption d'innocence . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est, sur ce point Ã©galement, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
-49-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 17/12/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page