Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150
March 2012
Célice v. France - 14166/09
Judgment 8.3.2012 [Section V]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Inability to contest alleged road-traffic offence after payment of on-the-spot fine: violation
[This summary also covers the judgment in the case of Josseaume v. France, no. 39243/10, 8 March 2012]
Facts – In the Célice case, the applicant’s car was caught on a speed camera in June 2008 exceeding the speed-limit by 1 kph. The applicant received notice of the road-traffic offence with an order to pay a standard fine. In the Josseaume case the applicants are father and son. A parking offence was notified in respect of a vehicle registered in the son’s name and of which the father was the owner. In both cases the applicants paid the standard fine and applied to the public prosecutor’s office for an exemption. Their applications were declared inadmissible.
Law
(a) Admissibility (exhaustion of domestic remedies) – In the Célice case, since the application for exemption had been declared inadmissible by the prosecuting authorities, the advance paid by the applicant was deemed to constitute payment of the standard fine and no surcharge was added. It was possible to appeal to a court only against a payment order following non-payment of the fine and the addition of a surcharge.
In the Josseaume case the prosecuting authorities had failed to respond to the applicants’ appeal against the order to pay the fine, as increased by the surcharge, after apparently declaring it inadmissible. He had thus deprived the applicants of the possibility of appealing to a community judge (juge de proximité).
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(b) Merits – Article 6 § 1: The right to a court, of which the right of access was one aspect, was not absolute; it was subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal were concerned. However, such limitations could not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired. They must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecuting authorities responsible for verifying the admissibility of exemption applications and appeals against fines had three options: to drop the proceedings; to refer the matter to the competent court; or, where the application did not give reasons or was not accompanied by the notice, to inform the applicant of its inadmissibility.
In the Célice case the prosecution had taken the view that the application was inadmissible, finding that it was a “request for a photograph without an explicit denial of the offence”. However, that reason had been erroneous, because the applicant had clearly indicated, on the appropriate form, that he was challenging the offence of which he was accused and had set out his grounds in the requisite letter accompanying the application for exemption. In addition, by making that assessment the prosecuting authorities, whose remit was limited to examining the formal admissibility of the application, had acted ultra vires. Furthermore, the inadmissibility decision by that official had led to the retention of the sum paid in advance, which was considered to constitute payment of the standard fine. Therefore, in spite of the applicant’s objection, the fine was considered paid and the prosecution closed, without the “charge” against him having been determined by a “tribunal”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and without his arguments having been heard.
Moreover, in September 2010, the French Constitutional Councilfound that, where prosecuting authorities declared inadmissible an application for exemption from a standard fine, after the deposit had been paid, and where that declaration had the effect of converting the deposit into the fine itself, the inability to appeal against such a decision before the community judge was incompatible with the “right to an effective judicial remedy”.
In the Josseaume case the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that an admissible application stayed execution of the order to pay the fine, and the prosecuting authorities were required to inform the Treasury thereof immediately. The fact that the collection procedure had continued indicated that the authorities had deemed the applicants’ application inadmissible. In addition to the fact that the inadmissibility decision must have been based on a ground other than the two provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the application contained reasons and was duly accompanied by the notice, the prosecuting authorities had also failed to inform the applicants that the application had been dismissed. It thus appeared that the prosecuting authorities, acting ultra vires, had ruled on the merits of the application and thus deprived the applicants of their right to have the “charge” in question determined by a community judge.
Thus the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court had been impaired.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: The finding of a violation was sufficient in itself for the non-pecuniary damage in the Célice case; the applicants had failed to submit a claim in the required form in Josseaume.
© 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