CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128 March 2010 Poncelet v. Belgium - 44418/07 Judgment 30.3.2010 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Prosecution of senior civil servant on basis of reports compiled during an administrative inquiry that was biased against him: violation   Facts – The applicant was a senior civil servant. In 1994 an inspector was asked to conduct an administrative inquiry into certain public procurement contracts. He was of the opinion that there had been anomalies in the performance of those contracts and submitted various reports whose content displayed a hostile and biased attitude towards the applicant. In 1995 a judicial investigation was opened on charges of forgery and bribery. In 2006 theinvestigation divisionof the criminal court found that the inspector’s stance had breached the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. In 2008 the criminal court, ruling on the merits after appeal proceedings before higher courts, came to the same conclusion. In 2009 the court of appeal declared the proceedings against the applicant admissible but found that the prosecution had become time-barred. Law – Article 6 § 2: The investigation division had found that the right to be presumed innocent had been breached because of the biased stance adopted from the outset by the inspector, who had taken on the role of prosecutor. However, at the time the application was lodged the applicant’s case had not yet been brought before the trial court and it could not be determined whether there had been a breach of the right to be presumed innocent merely from an examination of the judicial investigation stage. The Court had to ascertain the findings of the trial court and in particular its assessment of the reports on which the criminal proceedings had been based. According to the criminal court, from his very first report the inspector had ruled out any error on the part of the authorities. That report had justified the opening of a judicial investigation concerning the applicant and the inquiry had been conducted on that basis. The criminal court had found that the inspector had begun his inquiry with opinions that were already biased against the applicant and that his conclusions reflected that bias. The inquiry had thus been conducted in breach of the right to be presumed innocent and of defence rights. The court of appeal had set aside the criminal court’s judgment and declared the criminal proceedings against the applicant admissible but had held that the prosecution had become time-barred. It had thus invalidated the effects of the investigation division’s decision and the criminal court’s judgment finding a breach of the right to be presumed innocent. The proceedings against the applicant having been brought and pursued in spite of the breach of the right to be presumed innocent and of defence rights, the court of appeal had crystallised the feeling that only the limitation period had prevented the applicant’s conviction. There had therefore been a breach of the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three). Article 41: EUR 5,000 for non-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