CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 octobre 2005

.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. 79 October 2005 Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 6223/04 Decision 18.10.2005 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Forfeiture of police officer’s pension for serious offences: inadmissible   The applicant, a police officer, was convicted of sexual offences against women, including rape, and sentenced to a total of 18 years’ imprisonment. Three of the offences were committed whilst the applicant was on duty. He was dismissed from the police force after 14 years and 40 days of pensionable service. Bearing in mind the gravity of the offences and the betrayal of an important position of trust, the Home Secretary issued a certificate which allowed the police authority to forfeit the applicant’s pension. Following a hearing in which representations from the applicant were heard, the police authority notified him that 75% of his pension would be forfeited. In the appeal proceedings in the Crown Court the amount of the pension to be forfeited was reduced to 65% by the Recorder, which also held that the forfeiture of the pension did not represent a double penalty. The applicant’s permission to apply for judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision was refused. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Where a State occupational pension was reduced, as a disciplinary measure, by 100% (as in Azinasv. Cyprus ) or by 65% (as in the present case), a finding of an “interference” with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions was inevitable. The State’s entitlement to bring forfeiture and disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, in addition to the criminal proceedings, was not in question: the criminal proceedings related to the breaches of criminal law, and the disciplinary and forfeiture proceedings related specifically to the applicant’s breach of the relationship of trust which must exist between all employees and their employer, but particularly so in the case of the police, who are held out to the public as guarantors of law-enforcement. As to the proportionality of the decision to forfeit the pension, it was not inherently unreasonable for provision to be made for reduction or even total forfeiture of pensions in suitable cases. Whilst the decision to forfeit the applicant’s pension was a discretionary measure, the applicant had been afforded extensive procedural protection under relevant domestic law, in particular under Home Office Circular 56/98 which gave guidance on forfeiture of police pensions in a three-stage procedure (this was the main aspect which differentiated this case from Azinas ). Given the particularly serious nature of the applicant’s offences, and the exceptional damage which behaviour such as his can be assumed to cause to the reputation of the police, the decision to deprive the applicant of that part of his pension which represented the State’s contributions to his pension could not be seen as upsetting a fair balance between the applicant’s individual rights and the concerns of his employer and the general public: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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