Information Note on the Court’s case-law 195
April 2016
Palmén v. Sweden (dec.) - 38292/15
Decision 22.3.2016 [Section III]
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
Right not to be tried or punished twice
Revocation of firearms licence by police authority following conviction for assault: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant was convicted of assaulting his partner and given a suspended sentence and a term of community service. Subsequently the Police Authority revoked the applicant’s firearms licence on the grounds that he was unsuitable to possess a weapon. In reaching that conclusion, the Police Authority noted that the applicant had been convicted of an assault that was rendered more serious by the fact that the violence had taken place at home and against a person with whom the applicant had a close relationship. The applicant’s appeals to the domestic courts against the revocation of his firearms licence were dismissed.
In the Convention proceedings, the applicant alleged that he had been tried and convicted twice for the same offence, in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
Law – Article 4 of Protocol No. 7: The first set of proceedings, in which the applicant was convicted of assault, was criminal in nature. As to the proceedings in which the applicant’s weapons licence was revoked, the Court applied the three “Engel criteria” for determining whether or not there was a “criminal charge”: the legal classification of the offence under national law, the very nature of the offence and the degree of severity of the potential penalty.
As to the legal classification of the offence the proceedings were considered under Swedish law as being administrative, not criminal, in nature. As regards the nature of the offence, revoking the weapons licence was not an automatic consequence of the criminal conviction. Indeed, while the conviction gave rise to the administrative proceedings, it was not the decisive factor in the revocation of the licence. Rather, the domestic authorities focused on the applicant’s personal circumstances (his earlier conduct – including the assault conviction – and the fact that he had been under the influence of alcohol, had committed the assault at home and had a close relationship with the victim). Only after assessing all these circumstances did they find that the applicant lacked the high levels of good judgement, reliability and obedience to the law necessary to be considered suitable to possess a weapon. In the Court’s view, the underlying object of revoking the firearms licence was preventive rather than punitive or deterrent in nature. States have a legitimate interest in protecting public safety by controlling who has the right to possess firearms and a responsibility to protect the general public. Lastly, as regards the degree and severity of the measure, the applicant was not professionally dependent on a firearms licence and could apply for a new licence at any time. Revocation of the firearms licence could not, therefore, be characterised as a penal sanction.
In sum, revocation of the licence was not to be considered, as a result of either its nature or severity, a criminal sanction for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
© 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