Only criminal charges attract the additional protections under article 6(2) and 6(3). Insofar as these provisions apply to ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence’ it is well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that this concept is co-extensive with the concept of the determination of any criminal charge. As to whether a successful defendant was entitled to an award of costs in his favour: The Court points out, first of all, like the Commission and the Government, that neither Article 6 (2) nor any other provision of the Convention gives a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ a right to reimbursement of his costs where proceedings taken against him are discontinued. The refusal to reimburse Mr Lutz for his necessary costs and expenses accordingly does not in itself offend the presumption of innocence. Counsel for the applicant moreover stated, in reply to a question from the President, that his client was not challenging that refusal but solely the reasons given for it. Nevertheless, a decision refusing reimbursement of an accused’s necessary costs and expenses following termination of proceedings may raise an issue under Article 6 (2) if supporting reasoning which cannot be dissociated from the operative provisions amounts in substance to a determination of the accused’s guilt without his having previously been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of the defence.’
9912/82, [1987] ECHR 20, (1987) 10 EHRR 182
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor) PC 28-Jun-2005
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European . .
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.165000
