Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199
August-September 2016
Igor Pascari v. the Republic of Moldova - 25555/10
Judgment 30.8.2016 [Section II]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Fair hearing
Bus driver found guilty of causing road accident in proceedings in which he was not involved: Article 6 applicable; violation
Facts – In 2009 the applicant, a bus driver, was involved in an accident with a car in which no one was injured. The driver of the car, P.C., was found responsible for the accident and fined. P.C. contested that decision and the domestic courts eventually found that the applicant was responsible for the accident under the Code of Administrative Offences. However, no sanction was imposed on him in view of the statutory limitation period. The applicant was not involved in the proceedings and only found out about them at a later date. Under domestic law he was not able to challenge the domestic courts’ decision.
Law – Article 6
(a) Applicability – The Government contended that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 was incompatible ratione materiae because the proceedings from which he had been absent were not criminal proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention.
The Court observed that the act considered as an offence and punished by the Code of Administrative Offences was directed towards all citizens and not towards a given group possessing a special status. The fine and penalty points provided for by that provision were not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but were punitive and deterrent in nature. That was particularly true when taking into consideration the effect of the penalty points, which could lead to the suspension of a driving licence for between six and twelve months. The Court reiterated that a punitive character is the customary distinguishing feature of criminal penalties. Although, due to a technicality, the applicant was not punished in the way provided for by the domestic law, what was decisive was the potential penalty rather than the one actually imposed. Article 6 § 1 was therefore applicable under its criminal head.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (majority).
(b) Merits – There was no dispute between the parties about the fact that the applicant was not involved in the proceedings which ended with the finding that he was responsible for the accident. Although that finding did not amount to a final determination of his guilt, it had a decisive effect on such a determination. The judgment had the effect of res judicata in respect of both the applicant and P.C., if only for making the latter immune from responsibility for the accident. Since in a car accident involving two vehicles, there should be at least one person responsible, the final exclusion of P.C.’s responsibility by the domestic courts implicitly predetermined the applicant’s guilt.
Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).
Article 41: EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
(See also Ziliberberg v. Moldova, 61821/00, 1 February 2005)
© 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