CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 janvier 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary February 2023 Société d’exploitation de jeux automatiques champenois (SEJAC) v. France (communicated case) - 62583/17   Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction for discriminatory nightclub entry practices on basis of “situation-testing” alleged to amount to entrapment: communicated In January 2010 a nightclub run by the applicant company was the target of a “situation‑testing” operation carried out under the authority of an assistant public prosecutor present at the scene. Volunteers recruited through associations to act as “testers” were divided into groups of varying racial and gender composition, each of which in turn then attempted to gain entry to the nightclub. After some groups were let in but others were not, an on‑the‑spot investigation was conducted and it was determined that there had been discrimination in so far as the groups that had been made up wholly or in part of persons of North African background had been denied entry without valid cause. After being convicted at trial and sentenced to a fine of 20,000 euros (EUR), the   applicant company was at first acquitted on appeal. The judgment of acquittal was overturned on points of law by the Court of Cassation and the case was remitted to another Court of Appeal. The applicant company requested the referral of a question for a preliminary ruling as to the constitutionality of Article   225‑3-1 of the Criminal Code , which was the legal basis for the type of operation in issue. However, the Court of Cassation refused to refer the question to the Constitutional Council. The   Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the conviction and sentence, and the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company’s attempt to challenge that decision on points of law. The applicant company argues that it was convicted as a result of entrapment, and that this amounts to a violation of the principle that evidence must be fairly obtained and of the requirement of impartial justice. Case communicated under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .