Information Note on the Court’s case-law 11
October 1999
Escoubet v. Belgium [GC] - 26780/95
Judgment 28.10.1999 [GC]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Temporary withdrawal of driving licence following accident: Article 6 inapplicable
(Extract from press release)
Facts: The applicant, Alain Escoubet, a French national, was born in 1948 and lives in Brussels (Belgium). At 6.30 p.m. on 16 June 1994 the applicant was involved in a road accident. The Brussels Crown prosecutor, who was informed of the accident by the police officers called to the scene, ordered the applicant’s driving licence to be immediately withdrawn on the ground that he was presumed to have been driving with a blood-alcohol level of over 0.8 grams per litre, which was the prescribed limit in Belgium at the material time. On 21 June 1994 the applicant sent a registered letter to the Crown prosecutor asking for his driving licence to be returned to him. In a letter of 23 June 1994 he was invited to collect it, which he did.
The applicant complained that, under Belgian law, no appeal to a judicial body lay against the immediate withdrawal of a driving licence ordered by the Crown prosecutor. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
Law: Applicability of Article 6 - The first issue before the Court was whether Article 6 of the Convention applied to the present case. It therefore had to determine whether a “criminal charge” or a “civil” right had been in issue.In ascertaining whether there was a “criminal charge”, the Court had regard to three criteria: the legal classification of the measure in question in national law, the very nature of the measure, and the nature and degree of severity of the “penalty”.
As regards the classification in domestic law of the immediate withdrawal of a driving licence, that measure was not, according to the Court of Cassation, a measure imposed under the criminal law, since it was a “preventive measure designed to take a dangerous driver off the roads for a specific period of time”. Classification in domestic law was not, however, decisive for the purposes of the Convention, having regard to the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to the term “criminal charge”.
As regards the nature of the measure, the Court observed that section 55 of the consolidated Acts of 16 March 1968 did not presuppose any investigation or finding of guilt and that its application was totally independent of any criminal proceedings which might subsequently be brought. The immediate withdrawal of a driving licence was a precautionary measure; the fact that it was an emergency measure justified its being applied immediately and there was nothing to indicate that its purpose was punitive. Withdrawal of a driving licence could be distinguished from disqualification from driving, a measure ordered by the criminal courts in the context of, and after the outcome of, a criminal prosecution.
With regard to the degree of severity, the Court pointed out that the effect of immediate withdrawal of a driving licence was limited in time, since it could not be withheld for more than fifteen days, other than in special circumstances. The impact of such a measure, in scope and in length, was not sufficiently substantial to allow it to be classified as a “criminal” penalty. In the instant case the Court observed that the withdrawal of the applicant’s driving licence had not caused him significant prejudice, since he had been able to get it back six days after he had handed it over to the police and two days after he had requested its return.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concluded that Article 6 was not applicable under its criminal head. Moreover, the applicant had not submitted any evidence in support of his argument that a “civil” right had been at issue in the present case.
Conclusion: no violation (14 votes to 3).
Article 13 - At the end of his memorial filed with the Court, the applicant had asked the Court to “hold that there [had] been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention or, in the alternative, a violation of Article 13”. Neither in his memorial, nor in his oral submissions to the Court, had the applicant made any other reference to a complaint based on Article 13. Under the circumstances, and since no separate issue appeared to arise under that provision, the Court could see no reason to examine it.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimous).
© 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