ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-2; Not necessary to examine Art. 14.
The accused had been investigated for suspected arson but discharged by the court on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to commit him for trial. He claimed compensation for pre-trial detention on remand. Under the local law, there was a right to such compensation either if the accused was ‘exculpated’ by the criminal court (which he had not been) or if he established his innocence. The Belgian court refused the application for compensation on the grounds that the accused had not established his innocence. The Strasbourg court held that to refuse compensation could not by itself amount to a breach of article 6(2) but that the requirement that the accused prove his innocence did so. It concluded that this provision ‘allowed doubt to attach itself to the correctness of the court’s decision’.
42914/98, [2005] ECHR 12
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
See Also – Capeau v Belgium ECHR 8-Jun-2011
. .
Cited – Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.227665