The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in
the Belilos case, delivered on 29 April 1988 and transmitted the same
day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against
Switzerland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights
on 24 March 1983 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
Mrs Marlène Belilos, a Swiss national, who complained that she had
been fined, for a criminal offence, by an administrative authority
- namely, the Lausanne (Canton of Vaud) Police Board - which was not
an "independent and impartial tribunal" within the meaning of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, and that the
available forms of appeal had not remedied this deficiency as neither
of the two courts concerned had full jurisdiction to re-examine
questions both of fact and of law;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission
on 18 July 1986 and by the Government of Switzerland on
22 September 1986;
Whereas in its judgment of 29 April 1988 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1
(art. 6-1), of the Convention;
- held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant in respect
of costs and expenses the sum of 11 750 Swiss francs, less
8 822 French francs to be converted into Swiss francs at the rate
applicable on the date of delivery of the judgment;
- rejected the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers
concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;
Having invited the Government of Switzerland to inform it of the
measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment, having
regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention
to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of
Ministers, the Government of Switzerland gave the Committee
information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment,
which information appears in the Appendix to this Resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of Switzerland has paid to
the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the
Government of Switzerland, that it has exercised its functions under
Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (89) 24
Information provided by the Government of Switzerland during the
examination of the Belilos case before the Committee of Ministers
In execution of the Court's judgment of 29 April 1988, the Swiss
Government has paid to the applicant the sum of 9 550 Swiss francs for
costs and expenses.
In a letter dated 6 June 1988, the Swiss Government notified the Swiss
cantons of the Court's judgment of 29 April 1988, drawing their
attention to their obligation to respect this judgment and asking them
to draw the legal consequences therefrom in respect of the criminal
law aspect of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention.
The Canton of Vaud, which was directly concerned by the Court's
judgment, decided to amend its Act of 17 November 1969 on municipal
sentences, which had been called into question by the Belilos case.
The legislative amendment was made by an Act of 1 March 1989, which
came into force on 2 May 1989. The new Act instituted a procedure of
appeal to the Police Court (or to the President of the Juvenile Court
in the case of minors aged under 18) against any sentence pronounced
by a municipality. Section 53 of the Act provides that the President
of the Court "shall freely review the case as to the facts and the
law".
Where the civil law aspect of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of
the Convention is concerned, the Swiss Government, on 16 May 1988,
gave the Secretary General of the Council of Europe clarification of
the declaration on interpretation made by Switzerland in 1974.
Furthermore, with a view to ensuring that the judgment of
29 April 1988 was distributed as appropriate, the Federal Chancellor's
Office published the main grounds of this judgment in the journal
known as the "Jurisprudence des autorités administratives de la
Confédération" (Case law of the administrative authorities of the
Confederation) (JAAC 1988 IV, Nos. 65, 84, 85 and 86).