Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 134
October 2010
Rinck v. France (dec.) - 18774/09
Decision 19.10.2010 [Section V]
Article 35
Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Complaint concerning EUR 150 fine and deduction of one point from driving licence: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant, a lawyer by profession, was served with a penalty notice following an automatic speed check. After reading a survey in a motoring magazine concerning the reliability of the type of equipment used in the speed check, he requested the authorities to produce various technical documents. His request was refused. At the hearing, the court found that the proper operation of the radar had been sufficiently established by the fact that it had obtained technical approval and by the proof of its annual inspection. It rejected the applicant’s request, found him guilty of the offence and ordered him to pay a EUR 150 fine. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant, holding in particular that the legislative provisions stating that the police report was valid unless proved otherwise were not incompatible with the principle of equality of arms. The applicant subsequently had one point deducted from his driving licence for the offence. Before the European Court he complained of a breach of the principle of equality of arms on account of the refusal by the prosecution to produce technical information in its possession.
Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): The concept of “significant disadvantage” was based on the idea that the violation of a right had to attain a minimum threshold of severity in order to warrant examination by an international court. The assessment of that threshold was by its very nature relative and depended on the circumstances of the case, regard being had both to the applicant’s subjective perception and to what was objectively at stake in the case. It thus involved the examination of criteria such as the financial implications of the issue and what was at stake for the person concerned. In the instant case the damage alleged by the applicant – a EUR 150 fine, EUR 22 in legal costs and the deduction of a point from his driving licence – had been particularly slight, and there was nothing in the file to indicate that his financial circumstances were such that the outcome of the case would have had significant repercussions on his personal life. The fact that he may have regarded the resolution of the case as a question of principle was not sufficient. Accordingly, the applicant had not suffered any “significant disadvantage” with regard to his right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, there was no compelling reason relating to the European public order which justified continuing the examination of the complaint, as the distribution of the burden of proof in relation to summary offences and the limits to the rights of the defence, in particular the right to obtain disclosure of relevant evidence by the prosecution, had already been the subject of rulings by the Court. Lastly, the case had been duly examined by a domestic court, which had not failed to address any substantial issue with regard to the interpretation or application of the Convention or domestic law.
The three conditions for the new admissibility criterion had therefore been met.
Conclusion: inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).
© 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