Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
September 1998
Lauko v. Slovakia - 26138/95
Judgment 2.9.1998
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Independent tribunal
Right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal: Article 6 § 1 applicable; 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.SCOPE OF THE CASE
Only complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 declared admissible by Commission – Court’s examination confined to these complaints.
II.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Applicability
Reiteration of Court’s case-law on Convention meaning of “criminal offence” – not disputed that minor offence of which applicant convicted not defined as criminal by domestic law – however, offence criminal in nature in view of general character of legal rule infringed by applicant and punitive purpose of fine imposed on him – Government’s arguments that commission of offence not punishable by imprisonment and not entered on criminal record not decisive of classification of offence under Article 6 § 1 – no need to examine seriousness of penalty at stake as lack of it cannot deprive offence of its inherently criminal character.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously).
B.Compliance
Reiteration of Court’s case-law on “independence” requirement – local and district offices charged with carrying out local State administration under government control – appointment of heads of those bodies controlled by executive – their officers have status of salaried employees – lack of any guarantees against outside pressures and of any appearance of independence – local and district offices not independent of executive within meaning of Article 6 § 1 – while entrusting prosecution and punishment of minor offences to administrative authorities not inconsistent with Convention, person concerned must have opportunity to challenge any decision made against him before tribunal that offers guarantees of Article 6 – applicant unable to have decisions of local and district offices reviewed by independent and impartial tribunal.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Requirements of Article 13 less strict than and absorbed by those of Article 6.
Conclusion: not necessary also to examine case under Article 13 (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: Sum awarded on equitable basis.
B.Costs and expenses: Claim allowed in part.
C.Other claims: No jurisdiction under Convention to order measures requested by applicant.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (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