Information Note on the Court’s case-law 50
February 2003
O. v. Norway - 29327/95
Judgment 11.2.2003 [Section III]
Article 6
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Refusal for compensation following acquittal, on ground of failure to show on balance of probabilities that the person did not commit the acts in question: violation
Facts: The applicant was acquitted by the High Court of committing sexual offences against his daughter. He subsequently lodged a claim for compensation for the damage caused to him by the criminal proceedings. The High Court, composed of the three trial judges, rejected the claim. It noted that the granting of compensation under Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dependent on it being shown to be probable that the person had not committed the acts in respect of which he had been acquitted. The court, referring to the evidence adduced at the trial, found it probable that the applicant had sexually abused his daughter. The Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court upheld this decision, although it stressed that the refusal of compensation did not imply that an acquittal was open to doubt.
Law: Article 6 § 2 – The compensation proceedings did not give rise to a criminal charge but the issue was whether they were linked to the criminal trial in such a way as to fall within the scope of Article 6 § 2. In that respect, the decisions were taken with specific reference to Article 444, under which a person who had been charged could seek compensation with respect to matters which were directly linked to the criminal proceedings against him. A claim had to be lodged within three months from the close of those proceedings, with the same court and, as far as possible, in the same formation. Moreover, compensation related to damage engaging the responsibility of the State, in view of which the grounds for granting or refusing it had to be of significance to the scope of application of Article 6 § 2. Leaving aside the different evidentiary standards, the issue in compensation proceedings to a very large extent overlapped with that in the criminal trial and it was determined on the basis of evidence from the trial by the same court. Thus, the compensation claim not only followed the criminal proceedings in time but was also tied to those proceedings in legislation and practice, with regard to both jurisdiction and subject matter. Although the applicant was not “charged with a criminal offence”, the conditions for obtaining compensation were linked to the issue of criminal responsibility in such a manner as to bring the proceedings within the scope of Article 6 § 2, which was therefore applicable. The High Court’s reasoning in refusing compensation clearly amounted to the voicing of suspicion against the applicant with respect to the charges of which he had been acquitted. Even if taken together with the cautionary statement of the Appeals Selection Committee, the impugned affirmations were capable of calling into doubt the correctness of the applicant’s acquittal, in a manner incompatible with the presumption of innocence.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 5,000 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
(This case raises issues similar to those in Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, 11 February 2003)
© 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