Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
October 1998
Aït-Mouhoub v. France - 22924/93
Judgment 28.10.1998
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Inadmissibility of two criminal complaints and civil-party applications, due to failure of person making them to pay the amount of security for costs: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Applicability of Article 6 § 1
Court considered second complaint – applicant had expressly mentioned in it financial loss caused by alleged offences – complaint had therefore concerned a civil right – it had also been designed to set in motion judicial criminal proceedings in order to secure a conviction that could have enabled him to exercise his civil rights in regard to the alleged offences and, in particular, to obtain compensation for the financial loss – outcome of proceedings had therefore been decisive for establishing applicant’s right to compensation.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable as regards second complaint (unanimously).
First complaint linked to second, despite a number of differences.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable as regards first complaint (eight votes to one).
B.Compliance with Article 6 § 1
Court considered second complaint – amount of security of costs set by senior investigating judge at FRF 80,000 – applicant’s income, however, had been assessed by Legal Aid Office at nil – no reply from that office in respect of applicant’s second complaint – senior investigating judge had declared civil-party application relating to applicant’s second complaint inadmissible – not for Court to assess merits of applicant’s complaint – it considered, however, that the setting of such a large sum had been disproportionate seeing that applicant, who had never received a reply from Legal Aid Office, had had no financial resources whatsoever – requiring applicant to pay such a large sum had amounted in practice to depriving him of his recourse before investigating judge – regard being had to all those factors, applicant’s right of access to a “tribunal” within meaning of Article 6 § 1 had been infringed.
Conclusion: violation as regards second complaint (unanimously).
As to first complaint, senior investigating judge had made orders in respect of it on same dates as he had made those relating to second complaint, with same purpose, same reasoning and same result.
As with second complaint, key fact was that in view of applicant’s total lack of means, which senior investigating judge could not have been unaware of, setting such a large sum had in practice deprived applicant of his recourse before that judge.
Conclusion: violation as regards first complaint (eight votes to one).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage: no causal link between violation found and alleged pecuniary damage – any non-pecuniary damage sufficiently compensated by Court’s judgment.
B.Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant (unanimously).
© 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