Tendam v. Spain

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 132

July 2010

Tendam v. Spain - 25720/05

Judgment 13.7.2010 [Section III]

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Refusal to award compensation for pre-trial detention because applicant acquitted for lack of evidence: violation

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Refusal to award compensation for loss or deterioration of property seized in criminal proceedings: violation

Facts – Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. In the first set, he was detained pending trial for 135 days, and was subsequently convicted at first instance and acquitted on appeal. In the second set of proceedings he was likewise acquitted and sought the recovery of possessions seized from him during the investigation. Although some of the items were returned to him, he noticed that they were damaged and that others had disappeared. He applied to the Ministry of Justice and the Interior for compensation, both for the damage resulting from his pre-trial detention and for the malfunctioning of the justice system that had led to the failure to return the seized items or to their loss in value. His application was dismissed under both heads. The applicant applied to the Audiencia Nacional for judicial review of that decision but without success. He subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, to no avail.

Law – Article 6 § 2: In dismissing the applicant’s claim for compensation for his pre-trial detention, the Ministry had relied on the fact that he had been acquitted on appeal for lack of sufficient evidence. Such reasoning, without qualification or reservation, cast doubt on the applicant’s innocence. In making a distinction between an acquittal for lack of evidence and an acquittal based on the finding that the alleged offence had not been committed, it had disregarded the applicant’s previous acquittal, which had to be taken into account by any judicial authority regardless of the reasons given for the criminal court’s decision. The national courts, for their part, had simply endorsed the Ministry’s reasoning without remedying the issue arising.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The seizure complained of by the applicant had not been designed to deprive him of his possessions but to prevent him temporarily from using them. There was no indication that it had lacked any basis in law. Furthermore, it had pursued the aim of guaranteeing the satisfaction of any claims brought by potential civil parties. After his acquittal, the applicant had brought an action against the State on account of the damage to or disappearance of the seized items. In the record of the return of the items, drawn up several months previously, he had mentioned the problem and the clerk to the investigating judge had noted that several items were in a poor condition. It also appeared from the case file that certain seized items had been deposited with third parties during the criminal investigation and had not subsequently been returned. Yet the national authorities, and in the final instance the Supreme Court, had dismissed the applicant’s claim on the ground that he had not proved that the seized items had disappeared or been damaged. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the burden of proof regarding the missing or damaged items had rested with the judicial authorities, which had been responsible for looking after them throughout the duration of the seizure, and not with the applicant, who had been acquitted more than seven years after the items had been seized. Since, following the applicant’s acquittal, the judicial authorities had not provided any justification for the disappearance of and damage to the seized items, they were liable for any losses resulting from the seizure. The domestic courts that had examined the claim had not taken into account the liability incurred by the judicial authorities or afforded the applicant an opportunity to obtain redress for the damage sustained. By refusing his claim for compensation, they had caused him to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 15,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; the Court reserved the question of pecuniary damage.

© 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