Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14
January 2000
Aannemersbedrijf Gebroeders Van Leeuwen B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 32602/96
Decision 25.1.2000 [Section I]
Article 6
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Refusal of compensation, following the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against a company, for damage resulting from the action of the authorities: inadmissible
In 1982 the administration of the applicant company, a limited liability company, was seized by the authorities on the suspicion that the company had been drawing up false invoices in order to defraud the tax and social security authorities. Without its accounts, the company was forced out of business and it was later declared bankrupt. In 1985 the prosecution was discontinued on account of the excessive time that had elapsed since the alleged offences had been committed. Despite repeated requests by the bankruptcy trustee, the authorities did not return the administration of the company until 1987. In 1990 the trustee initiated civil proceedings against the State on behalf of the company, claiming that its bankruptcy had been caused by a criminal investigation which had been retrospectively invalidated by the decision not to proceed. His claims having been rejected, the trustee lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held in an interlocutory judgement that the State was in principle liable to pay damages, but that this liability could be mitigated or even removed entirely by circumstances which could be blamed on the company itself. The State submitted statements made to the police by the applicant company’s managing directors in which they admitted committing the suspected offences. In 1994 the Court of Appeal accordingly confirmed the Regional Court’s refusal.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 2: Assuming Article 6 applies to legal persons in the same way as it does to individuals, the refusal to pay compensation for damage caused by the authorities in the course of criminal proceedings which are subsequently discontinued does not in itself amount to a penalty or measure that would be tantamount to a penalty. In addition, neither this provision nor any other of the Convention and its Protocols forces the Contracting States, where a prosecution has been discontinued, to indemnify a person “charged with a criminal offence” for any detriment he may have suffered. In the circumstances, the applicant company claimed from the State compensation for the damage caused by measures taken during criminal proceedings directed against the company itself. In refusing to award compensation, the Court of Appeal had regard to the unequivocal admission made by the managing directors during the criminal investigations of the use of forged invoices. This clear admission of guilt was enough to rebut the presumption of innocence and provided sufficient justification for the Court of Appeal’s relying on this admission: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Assuming Article 6 applies to legal persons in the same way that it does to individuals (the company having been charged with a criminal offence), the applicant company was afforded the requisite guarantees and was able to exercise the rights of defence during the whole pre-trial proceedings. It is not decisive that the case never went to trial, the decision whether to proceed to trial being one which it is not for the Court to question: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy