Search
document

Document text Analytics

X. v. BELGIUM

Doc ref: 4930/71 • ECHR ID: 001-3141

Document date: December 15, 1971

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

X. v. BELGIUM

Doc ref: 4930/71 • ECHR ID: 001-3141

Document date: December 15, 1971

Cited paragraphs only

THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows:

The applicant is a British subject born in London in 1938. He normally

resides in S., Essex, but is presently held in the Prison St. G. in

Brussels.

According to the applicant's statements and the documents supporting

him, he is a greengrocer who, in April 1970 travelled to Belgium with

two friends, MM. R. and D. The tree men left England on .. April and

arrived in Belgium two days later, having passed through France. The

applicant at once returned to England for business reasons and flew

back to Belgium on .. April. On .. April, while in the company of Mr.

D., he was arrested by the police. He then discovered that Mr. R. had

already been arrested and that all three were suspected of being

involved in the distribution of forged dollar notes.

The applicant claims that he was interviewed by an examining magistrate

who was hostile and appeared to be biased against him. The magistrate

asked the applicant to sign a statement written in Flemish without the

presence of a lawyer or consul.

A formal warrant of arrest was issued on .. April and renewed and

confirmed on .. April and again on .. May 1970. On the latter two

occasions, the charge was formally translated for the applicant's

benefit in the presence of his lawyer. On .. June the applicant

received a formal indictment written in Flemish. He states that the

charges set out in the indictment were not fully explained to him and

that he was never certain of their exact nature. He has supplied a copy

of this document which bears no indication that it was translated for

him.

The trial was held at Bruges on .. June and the three men were, in

fact, charged with the possession of forged banknotes and with having

uttered a forged note on .. April. At the trial, the direct questions

to the defendants were translated but other parts of the proceedings

were not translated. The applicant thought that defamatory remarks were

being made about him but he has never been able to confirm this. The

applicant was acquitted on the charge of uttering but convicted on the

charge of possession. His friends were convicted on both charges. He

was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal at Ghent on .. September 1970. The

appeal was dismissed. The applicant has not stated exact

grounds for the appeal, which was left in the hands of his Belgian

lawyer. He states that he has no documents relating to this appeal. It

does appear that he wrote to his lawyer on 20 July 1970 complaining

about the lack of translation.

He applied, by way of cassation proceedings, to the Supreme Court to

nullify his conviction but was informed on .. March 1971 that the

application had been refused on .. February.

The applicant also states that the conditions of his imprisonment are

unsatisfactory. He claims that because he is not a Belgian he is kept

in a remand prison where there are no proper facilities for work or

recreation. He states that he spends most of his time in solitary

confinement and that he has been given no translation of the Prison

Rules. The authorities were most un-co-operative when his mother

travelled from England to visit him and were reluctant to allow her to

see him. The applicant wished to be moved to another prison at Ostend

so that his wife can visit him.

Complaints

The applicant complains that he has been convicted, on circumstantial

evidence, of a crime of which he is innocent. He complains that the

indictment was not translated to him, that only direct questions were

translated during the trial and that during his subsequent imprisonment

he has been kept in solitary confinement and that contact with his

family has been difficult. He alleges violations of Article 5 and 6 of

the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant has complained of the conditions of his

imprisonment. The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints

as they have been submitted by him. However, after considering the

conditions as a whole, the Commission finds that they do not generally

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

forth in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is as a whole manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

2. The applicant has complained that he has been convicted on

circumstantial evidence of a crime of which he is innocent. He

complains that the indictment was not translated for him, and that only

direct questions were translated during the trial. The Commission

considers that these complaints may give rise to a question under

Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) of the Convention. The Commission finds

that an examination of the file at the present stage does not give the

information required for determining the question of admissibility. The

Commission notes that it is not clear whether the question of

translation facilities was raised during the applicant's appeals but

that he is no longer in contact with his lawyer and that he may be put

to expense if requested to submit court decisions. The Commission

therefore decides, in accordance with Rule 45, 3 (b) of its Rules of

Procedure, to give notice of these complaints to the Government of

Belgium and to invite the Government to submit its observations on the

question of admissibility. In the meanwhile, the Commission decides to

adjourn its examination of this part of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission

1. Declares inadmissible the applicant's complaints set out in the

last paragraph of the statement of facts.

2. Decides to adjourn its examination of the applicant's other

complaints.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant