Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 151
April 2012
Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania - 23470/05
Judgment 3.4.2012 [Section III]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Determination (criminal)
Fair hearing
Alleged lack of fairness of proceedings to have police report annulled following change in legislation: no violation
Facts – On the basis of a police report drawn up in May 2004 the applicant was ordered to pay a fine for causing a disturbance in the block of flats where she lived, amounting to a breach of the peace. She contested the police report before the court of first instance, which dismissed her claims as unsubstantiated. The applicant then lodged an appeal against that judgment, which was dismissed as unfounded by the county court.
Law – Article 6 § 1
(a) Admissibility – The new admissibility criterion provided for by Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention was not applicable, since respect for human rights required examination of the application to be continued notwithstanding the amount of the fine (approximately EUR 17) giving rise to the complaint. In that regard, the application raised the issue of the applicability of Article 6 in its criminal aspect to a set of criminal proceedings concerning the minor offence of breach of the peace. This was the first case which the Court had been called upon to examine since the changes to the relevant domestic law and practice previously held by the Court to be contrary to Article 6 on the ground that they did not provide sufficient safeguards, particularly with regard to respect for the presumption of innocence. A ruling by the Court on this question of principle would provide the domestic courts with guidance as to the scope of the guarantees which should be afforded at domestic level to persons committing the minor offence of breach of the peace. As to applicability, the general nature of the statutory provision infringed by the applicant and the deterrent and punitive purpose of the penalty imposed were sufficient to demonstrate that the offence in question was of a criminal nature for the purposes of Article 6, which was therefore applicable.
(b) Merits – There was no evidence that the courts before which the applicant had contested the police report had had preconceived ideas as to her guilt, despite the fact the judgment of the court of first instance made clear that they expected the applicant to adduce evidence to contradict the facts established by the police officer. The legislation on minor offences was applied in conjunction with the Code of Civil Procedure, which, with regard to evidence, was subject to the principle that the burden of proof lay with the person making the allegation. The Court noted in that connection that presumptions of fact or of law operated in every legal system and that, while the Convention did not prohibit them in principle, it did require the Contracting States to remain within certain limits regarding criminal law.
As to the seriousness of what had been at stake, in view of the changes made to the legislation on minor offences during the proceedings brought by the applicant, she had faced at most a fine, which, even in the event of non‑payment, could not then be converted into a custodial sentence.
With regard to the preservation of her defence rights, the applicant had merely added documents to the case file by way of evidence and had not requested that any persons be summoned to appear, although that option had been available to her. Article 6 did not prevent persons from waiving of their own free will the guarantees enshrined therein. However, any waiver had to be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest. By stating at a public hearing before the national courts that she did not wish to request the production of other evidence, the applicant had knowingly laid herself open to the risk of being convicted on the basis of the evidence in the case file, including the police report which she herself had produced before the court of first instance and in respect of which there had been a rebuttable presumption that it was well-founded.
Furthermore, the domestic courts that had examined the applicant’s challenge against the police report had enjoyed full jurisdiction and could have annulled the report had they considered it to be void or unfounded. There was nothing to suggest arbitrariness or a lack of fairness. The fact that the courts, on the basis of reasoned decisions, had assessed the grounds of nullity relied on by the applicant and had decided not to annul the report as the applicant would have wished was not sufficient to cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings in question or, more specifically, on the courts’ compliance with the principle of presumption of innocence.
Conclusion: no violation (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