Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850506-1057783
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 10:45:50+00:00
Document Index: 722825

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 266", "l'article 5", 'in fine', "l'article 1", 'in fine']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10577/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-05-06;10577.83 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) EGALITE DES ARMES, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-2) PRESOMPTION D'INNOCENCEParties : Demandeurs : G.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUtTE NÂ° 10577/8 3 G . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY G . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 6 May 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 mai 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article I of the First Protocol : Forfeiture to the State of bail for failure to appear before the couns is a deprivation of possessions in the public interest. In assessing the reasons put forward for failure to appear, the authorities must strike a fair balance betwâ¢een the general interest in the suppression of crime and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights . Article I - du Protocole additionnel : La dÃ©volution Ã l'Etat d'une caution pÃ©nale pour non-comparution devant les autoritÃ©s judiciaires est une privation de propriÃ©tÃ© pour cause dmilitÃ© publique . En apprÃ©ciant les excuses avancÃ©es pour la non-comparution, les autoritÃ©s doivent mÃ©nager un juste Ã©quilibre entre l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral de la rÃ©pression des infractions pÃ©nales et la sauvegarde des droits forufamentaur de l'intÃ©ressÃ©.
(English : see p . 200)
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortisant amÃ©ricain, nÃ© en 1926 Ã Essen en RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Il est banquier de profession et rÃ©side depuis 1969 Ã B ., Grand-DuchÃ© de Luxembourg .
Pour la procÃ©dure devant la Commission- le requÃ©rant est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Wolfgang Schmalz, avocat au barreau de Francfort sur le Main, assistÃ© de Me Josette Elvinger, avocat au barreau de Luxembourg . En vertu d'un mandat d'arrÃ¨t dÃ©cernÃ© contre lui le 29 octobre 1976 par le tribunal de district (Amtsgericht) de Francfort, le requÃ©ram fut arrÃ©tÃ© et placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire dans une prison de Francfort sous l'inculpation d'avoir commis entre 1972 et 1974, en sa qualitÃ© de directeur d'une banque de Luxembourg, des dÃ©toumements de fonds (Untreue) au prÃ©judice de ladite banque et de la sociÃ©tÃ© mÃ¨re de celleci, une banque de Francfort, dÃ©tournements qui- selon le mandat d'arrÃ©t, auraient Ã©tÃ© d'un montant total d'environ 4 .5 milliards de DM .
Le dÃ©lit d'abus de confiance reprochÃ© au requÃ©rant est prÃ©vu et rÃ©printÃ© Ã l'article 266 alinÃ©as I et 2 du Code pÃ©nal qui prÃ©voit une peine d'emprisonnement de I Ã 5 ans pouvant aller jusqu'Ã 10 ans dans les cas les plus graves . Le 12 novembre 1976 . soit aprÃ¨s 15 jours de dÃ©tention provisoire, le tribunal de district dÃ©cida cependant la suspension de la mise Ã exÃ©cution du mandat d'arrÃ©t du 29 octobre 1976 . En consÃ©quence, le requÃ©rant fut remis en libertÃ© sous certaines conditions . Ã savoir qu'il devait verser un cautionnement d'un montant total de 1 .800 .000 DM Ã dÃ©poser au greffe sous forme de valeurs mobiliÃ¨res et qu'il Ã©tait dans l'obligation, sous peine de voir la caution confisquÃ©e au profit du TrÃ©sor public, d'obtempÃ©rer Ã toute convocation Ã lui adressÃ©e par le Parquet ou le tribunal de Francfort . Par dÃ©cisions en date des 7 ntai et 23 octobre 1980, un nouveau mandat d'arrÃªt fut Ã©mis par le tribunal de Francfort, inculpant cette fois le requÃ©rant de complicitÃ© d'abus de confiance contmis au prÃ©judice d'une autre banque, Ã savoir la S . Bank . L'exÃ©cution de ce mandat d'arrÃªt fut Ã nouveau suspendue aux mÃ¨mes conditions que celles fixÃ©es par dÃ©cision du 12 novembre 1976 . L,e 4 dÃ©cembre 1980, une citation Ã comparaitre fut notifiÃ©e Ã l'avocat du requÃ©rant Ã Francfort aux fins de compamtion aux audiences de jugement fixÃ©es aux 16 et 23 dÃ©cembre 1980 devant le tribunal rÃ©gional (Landgericht) de Francfon . Le 12 dÃ©cembre 1980, l'avocat du requÃ©rant transmit au tribunal un certificat mÃ©dical datÃ© du 10 dÃ©cembre 1980 Ã©tabli par le mÃ©decin traitant du requÃ©rant, Ã savoir le Dr . P ., expen agrÃ©Ã© auprÃ¨s de la Cour supÃ©rieure de justice de Luxembourg . Aux termes de ce certificat mÃ©dical, il Ã©tait indiquÃ© que le requÃ©rant souffrait de pertubations neuro-psychiatriques de type paranoÃ¯aque, accompagnÃ©es d'un syndrome de peur et d'une dÃ©pression due Ã un Ã©puisement nerveux . D'aprÃ¨s le mÃ©decin traitam- l'Ã©tat de santÃ© psychique et psycho-somatique du requÃ©rant trouverait son origine dans l'expÃ©rience traumatique vÃ©cue par celui-ci dans son enfance sous le rÃ©gime national-socialiste en Allemagne . Cet Ã©tat se serait aggravÃ© depuis 1976 en raison de l'arrestation et de la dÃ©tention subsÃ©quente du requÃ©rant par le s 196
autoritÃ©s allemandes . En tout Ã©tat de cause, le mÃ©decin traitant du requÃ©rant attesta que ce demier Ã©tait dans l'incapacitÃ© de voyager (reiseunftihig) et d'assister aux dÃ©bats devant un tribunal allemand (vernehmungs- und verhandlungsunfÃ¢hig) . A l'audience du 16 dÃ©cembre 1980, Ã laquelle le dÃ©fenseur du requÃ©rant Ã©tait prÃ©sent, le tribunal n'Ã©leva aucune objection quant Ã la validitÃ© de ce certificat mÃ©dical . Au cours de l'audience du 23 dÃ©cembre 1980, le Parquet communiqua verbalement au tribunal un telex datÃ© du 17 dÃ©cembre 1980 Ã©manant du Bundeskriminalamt (Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police judiciaire) et selon lequel, d'aprÃ¨s un policier luxembourgeois consultÃ©, le requÃ©rant non seulement serait en pleine santÃ© et pratiquerait beaucoup de sports mais surtout venait Ã peine de rentrer d'un voyage aux Etats-Unis probablement vers le 9 ou le 12 dÃ©cembre, soit Ã une date oÃ¹ son mÃ©decin lui avait attestÃ© une incapacitÃ© de voyager . Sur la base des informations foumies par le Parquet, le Landgericht de Francfort dÃ©cida le 23 dÃ©cembre 1980 d'une part de rÃ©activer le mandat d'arrÃ¨t Ã©mis contre le requÃ©rant (art . 116 alinÃ©a 4 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale) et d'autre part d'ordonner la confiscation du cautionnement dÃ©posÃ© par le requÃ©rant, motif pris de sa noncomparution Ã l'audience . Par courrier du 29 dÃ©cembre 1980, le conseil du requÃ©rant interjeta appel immÃ©diat (sofortige Beschwerde) contre la dÃ©cision du 23 dÃ©cembre 1980 ordonnant la confiscation du cautionnement et la remise en vigueur du mandat d'arrÃªt . Par mÃ©moires des 13 janvier et 30 mars 1981, adressÃ©s au tribunal en motivation approfondie de son recours du 29 dÃ©cembre 1980, l'avocat du requÃ©rant faisait valoir d'une part que la dÃ©fense n'avait pas eu communication des informations fourv nies par le Parquet concernant le prÃ©tendu excellent Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant avant l'audience du 23 dÃ©cembre 1980 et d'autre part que les informations en question Ã©taient fausses ou tendancieuses . L'avocat du requÃ©rant soumettait par ailleurs un nouveau certificat mÃ©dical plus complet Ã©manant du mÃ©decin traitant et confirmant l'incapacitÃ© de voyager Ã fin de participation Ã une audience Ã Francfort . Par ordonnance en date du 3 dÃ©cembre 1982, soit prÃ©s de deux ans aprÃ¨s la date d'introduction du recours, la cour d'appel de Francfort commit un expert Ã fin de vÃ©rifier si l'Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant tel qu'il Ã©tait attestÃ© par les certificats mÃ©dicaux produits les 10 dÃ©cembre 1980 et 27 mars 1981 justifiait son absence aux audiences de jugement des 16 et 23 dÃ©cembre 1 980 . L'expert commis par la cour effectua son expertise sans examiner personnellement le requÃ©rant et uniquement sur la base des certificats mÃ©dicaux existants . Par son rapport dÃ©posÃ© le 17 janvier 1 983, l'expert concluait Ã la capacitÃ© de voyage r 197
du requÃ©rant (Reisefihigheit) tandis que trois autres experts consultÃ©s par l'avocat du requÃ©rant soumirent quant Ã eux des rapports datÃ©s des 14, 19 et 20 janvier 1981 par lesquels ils confirmaient les conclusions tirÃ©es du diagnostic opÃ©rÃ© par le mÃ©decin traitant . Parjugement en date du IÂ° 1 fÃ©vrier 1983, la cour d'appel de Francfort, se fondant sur l'avis de l'expert par lui dÃ©signÃ© . confirma en derniÃ¨re instance la dÃ©cision de dÃ©chÃ©ance du cautionnement prise par le tribunal rÃ©gional le 23 dÃ©cembre 1980 . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©cise qu'en ce qui conceme la durÃ©e anormalement longue de cette instance (du 29 dÃ©cembre 1980 au 1Â° fÃ©vrier 1983), les autoritÃ©s l'avaient informÃ©, suite Ã ses demandes rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©es, que l'appel immÃ©diat aurait Ã©chappÃ© au contrÃ´le en cours de procÃ©dure (im GeschÃ ftsgang ausser Kontrolle geraten) . Le 15 mars 1983, le conseil du requÃ©rant dÃ©posa un recours constitutionnel auprÃ¨s de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale constitutionnelle dans lequel il allÃ¨guait la violation des droits fondamentaux garantis aux articles 103 alinÃ©a I, 101, 14 alinÃ©a 3, 20 alinÃ©a 2, 2 alinÃ©a I de la loi fondamentale . Le recours fut rejetÃ© le 6 avril 1983 par un comitÃ© de trois juges pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement, aucun acte arbitraire ne pouvant Ãªtre mis Ã charge des juridictions critiquÃ©es . ............... EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la confiscation au profit du TrÃ©sor Public d'une caution d'un montant de 1 .8 millions de DM qu'il avait dÃ©posÃ©e pour garantir sa comparution sur toute convocation Ã©manant des autoritÃ©s judiciaires allemandes dans le cadre d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale intentÃ©e contre lui . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article I" du Protocole additionnel Ã la Convention qui stipule : Â« Toute personne physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa propriÃ©tÃ© que pour cause d'utilitÃ© publique et dans les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi et les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit international . Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©dentes ne portent pas atteinte au droit que possÃ¨dent les Etats de metire en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral ou pour assurer le paiement des impÃ´ts ou d'autres contributions ou des amendes . Â» La Commission constate que pour obtenir sa mise en libertÃ© en novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a remis au greffe du tribunal compÃ©tent des valeurs pour un montant de 1 800 000 DM en garantie de sa comparution aux actes ultÃ©rieurs de la procÃ©dure 198
pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre lui . Elle rappelle que l'exigence d'une caution pour mettre en libertÃ© une personne soupÃ§onnÃ©e d'avoir commis une infraction est explicitement autorisÃ©e par l'article 5 par . 3, in fine, de la Convention . La remise d'une caution pÃ©nale s'analyse en la constitution par l'intÃ©ressÃ© d'un gage en faveur de l'Etat . Elle soumet l'inculpÃ© Ã certaines obligations parmi lesquelles figurent, comme en l'espÃ¨ce, l'obligation de comparaÃ®tre sur toute rÃ©quisition des autoritÃ©s judiciaires chargÃ©es de l'instrUction de l'affaire . En l'occurrence il n'est pas contestÃ© que le requÃ©rant, en violation des engagements qu'il avait souscrits, n'a pas comparu aux audiences des 16 et 23 dÃ©cembre 1980 auxquelles il avait Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ¨rement convoquÃ© . Cette absence du requÃ©rant a entraPnÃ© la dÃ©chÃ©ance au profit du TrÃ©sor public du cautionnement dÃ©posÃ© . En matiÃ©re de cautions pÃ©nales, l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral de la communautÃ© est d'assurer dans les meilleures conditions, notamment par la comparution du prÃ©venu, la rÃ©pression des infractions pÃ©nales . La privation de propriÃ©tÃ© dont le requÃ©rant a fait l'objet doit donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e dans son principe comme ayant Ã©tÃ© opÃ©rÃ©e pour cause d'utilitÃ© publique au sens de l'article 1Â°' du Protocole additionnel . Il reste Ã examiner si, en n'acceptant pas l'excuse prÃ©sentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant pour sa non-comparution Ã ces audiences, les tribunaux ont omis de rechercher si un juste Ã©quilibre avail Ã©tÃ© maintenu entre les exigences de l'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral de la communautÃ© et les impÃ©ratifs de sauvegarde des droits fondamentaux de l'individu . La Commission estime qu'en matiÃ¨re de mise en libertÃ© sous caution, il est lÃ©gitime que les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes examinent de maniÃ¨re soigneuse et critique les excuses prÃ©sentÃ©es par un prÃ©venu qui, en violation de ses engagements, n'a pas comparu mais qui dÃ©sire cependant obtenir restitution de sa caution . En l'espÃ¨ce, les tribunaux ont Ã©tÃ© saisis d'informations qui jetaient un doute grave sur l'apprÃ©ciation de l'Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant tel qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© attestÃ© par les certiflcats Ã©mis par son mÃ©decin-traitant . C'est Ã la suite d'investigations complÃ©mentaires comportant notamment l'avis d'un expert, que les tribunaux ont estimÃ© ne pas pouvoir retenir l'excuse prÃ©sentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, avec pour consÃ©quence la perte par le requÃ©rant des valeurs qu'il avait remises en garantie de sa comparution . De l'avis de la Commision, cette dÃ©cision prise aprÃ¨s un examen soigneux de la situation, ne tÃ©moigne d'aucun arbitraire de la pan des tribunaux . En ce qui concerne le montant de la caution, que le requÃ©rant juge disproportionnÃ© Ã la gravitÃ© des accusations finalement portÃ©es contre lui, la Commission peut se borner Ã relever que le requÃ©rant n'a pas allÃ©guÃ© avoir demandÃ© une rÃ©duction de ce montant lorsqu'il apprit, le 23 octobre 1980, qu'il n'Ã©tait plus prÃ©venu que de complicitÃ© d'abus de confiance au prÃ©judice de la S . Bank .
Au surplus . les tribunaux compÃ©tents ont soigneusement examinÃ© cette question de proportionalitÃ© de la caution versÃ©e par rapport au changement intervenu dans la qualification de l'infraction . Le requÃ©rant n'a pas dÃ©montrÃ© en quoi leurs conclusions auraient Ã©tÃ© arbitraires . Il s'ensuit que le prÃ©sent grief est manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'a rt icle 27 par . 2 de la Convention .
THE FACT S The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant is an American national bom in Essen, Federal Republic of Germany . in 1926 . He is a banker by profession and has resided since 1969 at B . in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg . The applicant is represented in the proceedings before the Commission by Mr . Wolfgang Schmalz, a barrister at Frankfurt-am-Main, assisted by Ms . Josette Elvinger, a barrister at Luxembourg . The applicant was arrested on a warrant issued on 29 October 1976 by the Frankfurt District Court (Anttsgericht) and was detained on remand in a Frankfun prison on a charge of misappropriation of funds (Untreue) between 1972 and 1974 from the Luxembourg bank which he managed and from its parent company, a Frankfurt bank, to a total amount of sonie DM 4,500 million according to the arrest warrant . The offence of misappropriation with which the applicant was charged is punishable under Article 266 paras . I and 2 of the Criminal Code by a term of imprisonment of one to five years, which may be extended to ten years in particularly serious cases . On 12 November 1976 . after the applicant had been in custody on remand for a forinight, the District Court nevertheless decided to suspend the enforcement of the arresl warrant issued on 29 October 1976 . 200
The applicant was accordingly released on certain conditions, namely that he should deposit bail of DM 1,800,000 with the court registry in the form of transferable securities and that he should comply with any summons be received from the Public Prosecutor's office or the Frankfurt District Court, on pain of forfaiting his bail to public funds . By decisions of 7 May and 23 October 1980, the Frankfurt Court issued a further arrest warrant against the applicant, this time charging him with aiding and abetting misappropriation from another bank, the S . Bank . The enforcement of this warrant was again suspended on the same conditions as those laid down in the decision of 12 November 1976 . On 4 December 1980 a summons was served on the applicant's lawyer in Frankfurt to appear at trial hearings on 16 and 20 December 1980 before the Frankfurt Regional Coun (Landgericht) . On 12 December 1980 the applicant's lawyer sent the Court a medical certificate dated 10 December 1980 made out by the applicant's physician, Dr . P ., an expert approved by the Luxembourg Higher Court of Justice . According to the medical certificate, the applicant was suffering from neuropsychiatric disturbances of a paranoid nature, together with a fear syndrome and a depressive condition due to nervous exhaustion . The doctor stated that the applicant's state of mental and psychosomatic health stemmed from the traumatic experience he had undergone in childhood under the National Socialist regime in Germany . His condition was said to have worsened since 1976 owing to his arrest and subsequent detention by the German authorities . At all events, the applicant's physician certified that the applicant was unfit to travel (reiseunfÃ¢hig) and take part proceedings before a German court (vernehmungs- und verhandlungsunfihig) . At the hearing on 16 December 1980, attended by the applicant's counsel, the Court did not contest the validity of the medical certificate . At the hearing on 23 December 1980 the prosecution orally informed the Court of the terms of a telex dated 17 December 1980 from the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Investigation Department) to the effect that, according to a Luxembourg police officer who had been consulted, not only was the applicant fully healthy and engaged in a variety of sports but he had just remmed from a trip to the United States, probably around 9 or 12 December, i .e . at a date when his doctor had certified him unfit to travel . On the strength of the particulars supplied by the prosecuting authorities, the Frankfurt Regional Court decided on 23 December 1980 to reactivate the warrant for the applicant's arrest (Article 116 para . 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and order the forfeiture of the applicant's bail because of his failure to appear at the hearing .
By correspondence dated 29 December 1980, the applicant's counsel entered an immediate appeal (sofortige Beschwerde) against the decision of 12 December 1980 ordering the forfeiture of bail and the reactivation of the arrest warrant . In memorials dated 13 January and 13 March 1981 submitted to the Court in further substantiation of the appeal of 29 December 1980, the applicant's lawyer argued . first, that the information supplied by the prosecution concerning the applicant's alleged excellent health prior to the hearing of 23 December 1980 had not been communicated to the defence and, funher, that such particulars were false or tendemious .
The applicant's lawyer also submitted another, more comprehensive medical certificate issued by the applicant's doctor, confirming his unlitness to travel for the purpose of attending a hearing in Frankfurt . By an order dated 3 December 1982, i .e . almost two years after the date on which the appeal was Iodged, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court appointed an expert to ascertain whether the applicant's state of health as attested in the medical certi0cates produced on 10 December 1980 and 27 March 1981 justified his absence from the trial hearings on 16 and 23 December 1980 . The expert appointed by the Court made his investigation without personally examining the applicant and solely on the basis of the existing medical certificates . His report, lodged on 17 January 1983, concluded that the applicant had been fit to travel (reisefÃ¢hig), whereas three other experts consulted by the applicant's lawyer submitted reports . dated 14, 19 and 20 January 1981 respectively, confirming the conclusions drawn fmnt the diagnosis by the applicant's physician . Jn a final-instancejudgment of I February 1983, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court . on the basis of the opinion of the expert it had appointed, confirmed the Regional Court's decision of 23 December 1980 concerning forfeiture of bail . With the regard to the unusual length of this procedure (from 29 December 1980 to I February 1983) . the applicant submits that he was informed by the authorities, following repeated requests on his pan . that his intmediate appeal had been lost sight of in the course of proceedings (im GeschÃ¼ftsgang ausser Kontrolle geraten) . On 15 March 1983 the applicant's counsel lodged a constitutional appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court, alleging violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 103 para . I . 101, 14 para . 3, 20 para . 2 and 2 para . I of the Basic Law . The appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded on 6 April 1983 by a panel of threejudges, who found no evidence of arbitrary action by the courts complained of . ............... 202
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant complains of the forfeiture to public funds of bail totalling DM 1 .8 million which he had deposited as surety for his appearance in response to any summons from the German judicial authorities in the context of criminal proceedings against him . In this connection he relies on Article I of Protocol No . I to the Convention, which provides that : "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law . The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right o f a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties . " The Commission observes that, in order to secure his release from custody in November 1976, the applicant lodged transferable securities worth DM 1,800,000 with the registry of the competent court to guarantee his appearance at subsequent stages in the criminal proceedings against him . It recalls that insistence on a guarantee for releasing a person suspected of having committed an offence is explicitly authorised by Article 5 para . 3 in fine of the Convention . The payment of bail by an accused is designed to provide the State with a surety . It places the accused under certain obligations which include, as in the present case, an obligation to appear in response to any demand by the judicial authorities responsible for investigating the case . In the present instance it is not denied that the applicant broke his undertaking by failing to appear at the hearings of 16 and 23 December 1980 to which he had been duly summonsed . As a result of his non-appearance, the bail deposited by him was forfeited to public funds . In the matter of bail, the general interest of the community is to ensure that criminal offences are dealt with in an optimum manner, in particular through appearance the accused, in response to summonses . The deprivation of possessions suffered by the applicant should, therefore, essentially be regarded as having been effected in the public interest within the meaning of Article I of the Protocol No . I to the Convention . It remains to be seen whether the courts, in rejecting the applicant's excuse for his failure to appear at the hearings in question, neglected to consider whether a fai r
balance had been maintained wetween the general interest of the community and the need to protec the individual's fundamental rights . The Commission believes that, where release on bail is concerned, it is only proper that the competent authorities should consider carefully and critically the excuses submitued by an accused person who, contrary to his undertakings, failed to appear but nevertheless wishes to have his bail refunded . In the present case, the courts received information which cast serious doubt on the assessment of the applicant's state of health as appearing in the certificates issued by his physician . Only after further investigations, including the consultation of an expert, did the courts conclude that the applicant's excuse was unacceptable . with the result that the securities he had provided to guarantee his appearance were forfeited . In the Commission's opinion, this decision, reached after careful consideration of the circumstances, does not reveal any arbitrary action by the courts .
As to the amount of the bail, regarded by the applicant as out of proportion with the seriousness of the charges ultimately brought against him, the Commission merely observes that the applicant does not claim that he applied for a reduction in the amount when informed on 23 October 1980 that the only remaining charge against him was misappropriation from the S . Bank . Moreover, the contpetent courts carefully considered this question of the proponionality of the bail in relation to change ntade in the classification of the offence . The applicant has not shown in what way their findings might have been arbitrary . Consequently, the present complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
204Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 06/05/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page