Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810505-903780
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 08:38:32+00:00
Document Index: 300558692

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 4", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "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 : 9037/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-05-05;9037.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9037/8 0 X . v/SWITZERLAN D
X . c/SUISS E DECISION of S May 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 5 mai 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention : The rute of presumption of inrtocence is rtot infringed by dte fact that an acquitted person rnust, in the absence of an v court decision in this respect, sustain the (awyer's fees and a certain loss of incotne as a result of these proceedings . .
Article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : La rÃ¨gle de la prÃ©somption d'irtnocence n'est pas enfreinte du fait qu'une personne acquittÃ©e doit, en l'absence de toute dÃ©cision judiciaire Ã cet Ã©gard, supporter les honoraires de son avocat et certaines pertes de revenus Ã [a suite de la procÃ©dure .
(English : see p. 224)
Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã 20 mois d'emprisonnement pour abus de confiance par le tribunal correctionnel de Lausurtne . AprÃ¨s l'Ã©chec d'un pourvoi en cassation, il a forrnÃ© un recours de droit pub(ic au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©rat. Cetue haute juridiction dÃ©clara le recours fondÃ©, en estimant que le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© arbitrairemeru . Le premier jugernent fut annulÃ© par la cour de cassmion du canton de Vaud, qui renvoya l'affaire au tribunat d'Yverrton .
A ('issne du second procÃ¨s le requÃ©rant fut acquittÃ© et les frais de procÃ©dure rnis Ã la charge de !'Etat . Le requÃ©rant se plaint toutefois d'avoir eu a supporter les honoraires de son avocat (37 000 FS) et d'avoir subi une pene de revenu (31 000 FS) .
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir dÃ» supporter les frais d'avocat occasionnÃ©s par l'ouverture d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale contre lui pour abus de confiance, alors qu'il avait bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'un acquittement . Il soutient Ã cet Ã©gard que toute personne acquittÃ©e doit Ãªtre traitÃ©e comme innocente et ce aussi par rapport Ã la question de l'imputation des dÃ©bours personnels . Il se plaint en outre que les autoritÃ©s suisses ne lui aient accordÃ© aucune rÃ©paration en dÃ©pit du fait qu'Ã la suite de sa condamnation il ait Ã©tÃ© atteint d'une dÃ©pression nerveuse et perdu son poste d'enseignant . Il allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention qui prÃ©voit que = 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 + .
2 . La Commission constate, en premier lieu, que le requÃ©rant, aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ© . a introduit une action directe devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral confortnÃ©ntent Ã l'article 4 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale d'organisation judiciaire, demandant le remboursenicnt des frais d'avocats et des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pour les agissentents prÃ©tenduntent illicites des autoritÃ©s cantonales vaudoises . 11 semble donc, de ce fait . avoir satisfait Ã la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . prÃ©vue Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . 3 . L'article b, paragraphe 2 . qui pose le principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence est avant tout une garantie de caractÃ¨re procÃ©dural ; elle concerne l'Ã©tat d'esprit et l'attitude du juge appelÃ© Ã statuer sur une accusation pÃ©nale portÃ©e devant lui, en lui interdisant notamntent de oartir de la conviction ou de la supposilion que l'accusÃ© est coupable (cf . RequÃªte NÂ° 788/60, Autriche c/Italie . Rapport de la Commission par . 179, Ann . VI, p . 782) . ConformÃ©ment Ã cette rÃ¨gle . le juge du fond ne pourra prononcer une condamnation que si l'accusation a pu dÃ©montrer devant lui la culpabilitÃ© de l'accusÃ© (cf . RequÃ©le NÂ° 6903/75, De Weer c/Belgique, Rapport de la Contmission par . bl) . Le dontaine d'application et la portÃ©e du principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence ont dÃ©jÃ fait l'objet devant la Comntission de requÃªtes concernant les dÃ©cisions relatives aux frais judiciaires ou aux frais personnels (cf . RequÃ©tes N` 6281/73 . Neubecker c/RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . D .R . S, p . 13 (dÃ©cision) et 8 p . 30 (rapport) ; NÂ° 6650/75, Liebig c/RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Alleniagne . D .R . 5, p . 58 (dÃ©cision) NÂ° 7640/76, Geerk c/Suisse . D .R . 12, p . 102 (dÃ©cision) et 16 p . 56 (rapport) NÂ° 8860/79, Minelli c/Suisse . D .R . 21 p . 199) . Les requÃªtes soulevaient notamment la question de savoir si l'article b . paragraphe 2, protÃ©geait la personne non condamnÃ©e par un jugement dÃ©finitif contre toute constatation forntelle de eulpabilitÃ© . sous quelque fornie que ce soit . 4 . La Commission estime, toutefois, qu'elle n'a pas Ã trancher une telle question dans la prÃ©sente affaire . En effet . le . . . octobre 1977, le Tribunal
correctionnel du district d'Yverdon acquitta le requÃ©rant, qui fut libÃ©rÃ© de tous les frais de la procÃ©dure . Contrairement Ã une affaire suisse, dÃ©jÃ exantinÃ©e par la Contmission (RequÃªte NÂ° 7640/76 . Geerk c/Suisse, prÃ©citÃ©e), le Tribunal a estintÃ©, dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, que les frais de justice devaient Ãªtre mis Ã la charge de l'Etat, comme l'exigeait l'Ã©quitÃ©, Ã©tant donnÃ© que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas donnÃ© lieu Ã l'ouverture de l'action pÃ©nate, ni compliquÃ© l'instruction . Aucune apprÃ©ciation sur les faits et la culpabilitÃ© du requÃ©rant ne fut Ã©mise dans ce contexte, ailleurs que dans un jugement en bonne et due forme . 5 . II est vrai que le requÃ©rant fait valoir qu'ayant Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ©, il aurait dÃ» Ãªtre remboursÃ© de ses dÃ©bours personnels et dÃ©dontmagÃ© des prÃ©judices subis par la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale dont il a fait l'objet . Ã savoir deux annÃ©es de salaire pour perte de son poste d'enseignant . Il ne serait pas, de ce fait, considÃ©rÃ© contnte - innocent . au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Mais la Commission souligne Ã cet Ã©gard que cette disposition ne contient aucune indication gÃ©nÃ©rale en matiÃ¨re de dÃ©bours personnels . On ne saurait en dÃ©duire une obligation pour les Etats de laisser les personnes ayant bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'un acquittement . libres de tous frais ou dÃ©penses . De mÃªme que l'article 6 . paragraphe 2 . lu en relation avec l'a rt icle 5, paragraphe 5, n'impose pas aux Etats le devoir d'indemniser l'accusÃ© bÃ©nÃ©ficiaire d'un acquittement pour une dÃ©tention provisoire qui parait pleinement justifiÃ©e au sens d ( cf . notamment RequÃªt eenl'artic5,pghe1()dlaCovti NÂ° 5969/72 . X . c/No rvÃ¨ge, D .R . 2, p . 52), il faut admettre que l'article 6 . paragraphe 2 . ne s'oppose pas Ã ce qu'une personne ayant Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©e, et postÃ©rieurement acquittÃ©e, soit obligÃ©e de suppo rt er les frais d'avocats ainsi que les prÃ©judices qu'aurait pu entraÃ®ner sa condamnation . Un exatnen des faits, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s, ne permet pas dÃ¨s lors de dÃ©celer l'apparence d'une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 . de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 .
Par ces niotifs, la Commission , DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE .
Summary of the facts The applicant was convicted and sentetuâ¢ed by the Lausanne District Criminal Court to 20 months' itnprisortmem for misappropriation . After an unsuccessfu l plea of nullity he brought a public law appeal to the Federal Court . Titis high jurisdiction admitted the appeal considering that the applicant had been convicted in a arbitrary manner. The first judgnie.nt was quashed by the Court of Cassation of the Canton Vaud, which referred the case to the Yverdon District Criminal Court. At the outcotne of the second proceedings . the applicant was acquitted and the court held that the court fees should be paid by the State . The applicant complains however that he had to pav the lawyer's fees (37.000 SF) and that he had suffered a loss of income (31 .000 SF) .
(TRANSLATJON)
THE LA W The applicant complains that he had to pay the lawyer's fees incurred as 1. a result ot' criminal proceedings taken against him for misappropriation even though he had been acquitted . He maintains in this connection that any person acquitted must be treated as innocent on all matters including the pavment of personal expenses . He further complains that the Swiss authorities granted him no contpensation despite the fact that he suffered from depression as a result of his conviction and lost his job as a teacher . He alleges violation of Article 6 (2) of the Convention which states that "everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law" . 2 . The Contmission finds, firstly, that after his acquittal, the applicant brought direct proceedings before the Federal Court in accordance with Section 4 of the Federal Judicature Act, claiming reimbursement of his lawyer's fees and reparation for the allegedly unlawful dealings of the authorities of Canton Vaud . It thus appears that the applicant satisfied the requirement in Article 2 6 of the Convention that the domestic remedies be exhausted . 3 . Article 6 (2) which enshrines the principle of presumption of innocence is first and foremost a procedural guarantee ; it is concerned with the state of mind and the attitude of a judge called upon to decide on a criminal charge brought before him, notably by prohibiting him from entertaining the convic-224-
tion or assumption that the accused is guilty (cf. Application NÂ° 788/60, Austria v/Italy, Report of the Commission, paragraph 179, . Yearbook VI, p . 782) . He can only convict if the presecution ha .s succeeded in proving in his presence that the accused is guilty (cf Application NÂ° 6903/75, De Weer v/ Belgium, Report of the Commission, paragraph 61) . Where and how far the principle of presumption of innocence must apply are questions that have been put to the Commission before in applications concerning decisions relating to court fees or personal expenses (cf . Application N' 6281/73, Neubecker v/Federal Republic of Germany, Decisions and Reports 5, p . 13 (decision) and 8, p . 30 (Report) ; NÂ° 6650/75, Liebig v/ Federal Republic of Germany, Decisions and Reports 5, p . 58 (decision) ; NÂ° 7640/76 . Geerk v/Switzerland, Decisions and Reports 12, p . 102 (decision) and 16, p . 56 (Report) ; N' 8860/79, Minelli v/Switzerland, Decisions and Reports 21, p . 199) . One of the questions raised in these applications was whether Article 6 (2) protected the person not convicted by a final judgment against formal finding of guilt in any form whatsover . 4 . The Commission, however, considers that it is not required to decide this question in the present case since, on . . . October 1977, the Yverdon District Criminal Court acquitted the applicant who was granted exemption from all court fees . In this case, unlike a Swiss case examined earlier by the Commission (Application NÂ° 7640/76, Geerk v/Switzerland, mentioned above), the Court considered that the fees should be paid by the State, as fairness demanded, owing to the fact that the applicant had not given cause for criminal proceedings to be taken nor had he complicated the investigations . No appraisal concerning the facts and the applicant's guilt were made in this context elsewhere than in a judgment in proper form . 5 . It is true that the applicant submits that after his acquittal he should have had his personal expenses refunded and received compensation for the injury sustained on account of the criminal proceedings taken against him, that is to say two years salary for the loss of his teaching post . In his opinion this meant that he was not regarded as "innocent" within the meaning of Article 6 (2) of the Convention . However, the Commission wishes to emphasise here that this paragraph contains no general provision on the subject of personal expenses . No obligation is implied for States to relieve persons acquitted of all costs and expenses . Just as Article 6 (2), read in conjunction with Article 5 (5) does not imply an obligation for States to compensate an accused person who is subsequently acquitted for a period of detention on remand that appears fully justified under Article 5(1) (c) of the Convention (see in particular Application N' 5969/72, X . v/Norway, Decisions and Reports 2, p . 52), it must b e
-22,5-
allowed that nothing in Article 6 (2) stands in the way of a person who has been convicted and is subsequently acqui tt ed from having to pay his lawyer's fees and bear anv adverse consequences which may have been caused by his conviction . An examination of the case as it has been submi tt ed does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (2) of the Convention . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning ot' Article 27 (2) .
The Commission, therefore . DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
- 226 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/05/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page