THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42837/19 José Antonio PICÓN GONZÁLEZ against Spain

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Andreas Zünd, President, María Elósegui, Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 42837/19) against Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 August 2019 by a Spanish national, Mr José Antonio Picón González, who was born in 1960 and lives in Madrid (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr D. Miranda Wallace , a lawyer practising in Madrid;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Spanish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr. L. E. Vacas Chalfoun, Representative of Spain to the European Court of Human Rights;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns an alleged breach of the right of access to court under Article 6 of the Convention.

2. The applicant worked at the Guardia Civil (Spanish Security Forces). On 21 September 2011 one of his superiors opened a preliminary police inquiry into theft of gasoil at its own premises. On 23 October 2012 the applicant was questioned by the police, on suspicion of theft. On 12 July 2013 the inquiry was terminated without the case being forwarded to a court. In parallel disciplinary proceedings the applicant had the position of a witness.

3. On 21 October 2017 the applicant brought a complaint against his superior before a Criminal Court on charges of misuse of the official documents ( infidelidad en la custodia de documentos ). On 21 November 2017 an investigating judge in Madrid forwarded the case to the courts in Valdemoro. On 9 January 2018 an investigating judge in Valdemoro dismissed the case on the grounds that the five-year statutory limitation period in respect of the offence of misuse of the official documents had expired, in accordance with the Spanish Criminal Code.

4. The applicant appealed against that decision arguing that the statutory limitation period should have been counted from the day when he had given evidence in the preliminary police inquiry (23 October 2012) and that, therefore, the statutory limitation period had not expired on 21 October 2017. The investigating judge and the Provincial Court dismissed the appeal. Finally, the applicant lodged an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court which was declared inadmissible for lack of constitutional relevance.

5. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had denied him the right of access to courts because they had wrongly interpreted and applied the rules of the Spanish Criminal Code. In his opinion, the facts he complained about constituted the criminal offence of administrative prevarication ( prevaricación administrativa ) in respect of which a ten-year statutory limitation period applied, and not, as the national courts had wrongly held, the criminal offence of misuse of the official documents in respect of which a five-year statutory limitation period applied. He also alleged that the manner in which the domestic courts had assessed the case was not foreseeable and had breached the principle of legal certainty.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

6. The Court notes that Article 6 is applicable to everyone charged with a criminal offence as well as to the proceedings concerning one’s civil rights and obligations. As regards the present application, the Court notes that a preliminary police enquiry was initiated in respect of the applicant on suspicion that he had been involved in a theft. That inquiry was terminated and no charges have been formally brought against the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant attempted to bring criminal proceedings against his superior but was not successful owing to the national courts’ conclusion that the prosecution for the offence at issue had become statute-barred.

7. The applicant’s complaints before the Court concern these latter proceedings and not the police inquiry terminated in 2013. The essence of the applicant’s complaint is that he was not able to bring criminal charges against a third person and that thus his right of access to a court was violated, contrary to the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The proceedings the applicant is complaining about neither concerned a criminal charge against him, nor determination of his civil rights and obligations, but an attempt to bring criminal proceedings against his superior.

8. The respondent Government argued that the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention were manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 3 (a). In so far as the complaints are related only to the criminal proceedings which the applicant tried to initiate, the question arises whether the applicant’s complaints are compatible with the provisions of the Convention.

9. The Court recalls, in particular, that there is no right under Article 6 of the Convention to obtain prosecution and conviction of a third party (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 I). Domestic law can provide that the victim of an offence has the right to claim reparation for the damage caused by that offence by means of civil party proceedings, that is to say, by allowing the victim to join criminal proceedings as a civil party. This is one possible way of providing for a civil action to obtain compensation for damage (see Perez , cited above, § 62). Article 6 § 1 is then applicable in its civil limb to a civil-party claim in criminal proceedings, except in the case of a civil action brought purely to obtain private vengeance or for punitive purposes (see Sigalas v. Greece , no. 19754/02, § 29, 22 September 2005), or when he or she has unequivocally waived the right to reparation.

10. A case-by-case examination is necessary to determine whether the domestic legal system recognises the claimant as having an interest of a civil nature in the criminal proceedings. It must be established that the claimant is seeking to secure the protection of a civil right and has an interest in claiming compensation, even at a later stage, for the violation of that right. Furthermore, the outcome of the proceedings in question must be decisive for obtaining redress for the damage. To fall within the scope of the Convention, such a right must be indissociable from the victim’s exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law (see, Gracia Gonzalez v. Spain , no. 65107/16, §§ 52-53, 6 October 2020).

11. The preliminary investigation stage or pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings may be of importance for civil proceedings, both because of the decisive impact the outcome of criminal proceedings might have, in certain circumstances, on civil proceedings and because of the fact that the evidence collected by the authorities could be used by the applicant in the civil proceedings and could prove to be essential for the determination of his claim. The manner in which Article 6 § 1 is to be applied during the investigation stage or pre-trial stage of proceedings, however, depends on the special features of the proceedings involved and the circumstances of the case (see, Mihail Mihăilescu v. Romania , no. 3795/15, § 80, 12 January 2021, with further references).

12. In the present case, there is no disagreement between the parties that the criminal proceedings did not involve civil claims by the applicant and that there were no separate civil proceedings pending. The decisions contested concerned application of criminal statutory time-limits to the third party. In such circumstances, and in the absence of additional information about any pending or future civil claim, the Court is unable to conclude that the proceedings in question could be considered decisive or essential for determination of the applicant’s civil rights (see, Perez , § 62, and Gracia Gonzalez , § 55, both cited above).

13. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaints are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 May 2022.

Olga Chernishova Andreas Zünd Deputy Registrar President