CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 janvier 2005

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 71 January 2005 Capeau v. Belgium - 42914/98 Judgment 13.1.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Compensation for detention followed by discontinuation of proceedings: request for damages rejected on ground of failure to submit evidence proving innocence: violation Facts : The applicant, who was arrested in connection with an arson investigation, was placed in pre-trial detention for more than three weeks. The courts which ruled on the action to be taken as a result of the investigation considered that there was insufficient evidence to justify sending him for trial, and accordingly found that there was no case to answer. The applicant immediately applied for compensation in respect of the time held in pre-trial detention. Under the relevant legislation, a person who had been placed in pre-trial detention and subsequently found to have no case to answer was required, when applying for compensation, to establish his or her innocence on factual or legal grounds. The authorities noted that the applicant had not submitted evidence establishing his innocence, concluded that he had not provided proof of his innocence as required by the law and accordingly dismissed his application. Law : Article 6 § 2 – The refusal to compensate the applicant was based solely on the fact that he had not submitted evidence of his innocence. The burden of proof could not properly be reversed as part of compensation proceedings brought following a final decision to discontinue criminal proceedings. The requirement that a person provide evidence of his or her innocence - which suggested that the court considered the person concerned guilty - seemed unreasonable and showed an infringement of the presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the reasoning behind the dismissal of the applicant’s request for compensation was incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © 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