CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 octobre 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. October 1997 Serves v. France - 20225/92 Judgment 20.10.1997 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Fair hearing Fining of a person for refusing to take the oath and give evidence before an investigating judge who had summoned him to appear as a witness: Article 6 §   1 applicable; no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   First complaint, based on Article 6 § 1 taken alone 1.   Applicability of Article 6 § 1 Applicant could be considered the subject of a “charge” within autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1 when he had been summoned to appear as a witness and fined for refusing to take the oath. Conclusion : Article 6 §   1 applicable (unanimously). 2.   Compliance with Article 6 § 1 Court’s task was to decide whether fining of applicant for refusing to take the oath had amounted to coercion such as to render his right not to incriminate himself ineffective. A witness’s obligation to take the oath and the penalties imposed for failing to do so involved a degree of coercion designed to ensure that any statements made to the judge were truthful, not to force witnesses to give evidence – accordingly, fines imposed on applicant had not constituted a measure such as to compel him to incriminate himself as they had been imposed before such a risk ever arose. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three). B.   Second complaint, based on Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (b) taken together Appellate court had dealt with ground of appeal raised at end of proceedings which could not be faulted under Article 6. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three). II.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Complaint that applicant’s right not to incriminate himself had been violated had already been considered under Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : unnecessary to rule on complaint (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