Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

Garimpo v. Portugal (dec.) - 66752/01

Decision 10.6.2004 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Application by assistente in criminal proceedings to civil court for compensation in respect of damage resulting from the criminal offence: Article 6 inapplicable

Following an accident in which the applicant’s son was kill ed, criminal proceedings were brought against the driver at fault. The applicant participated in the proceedings as an assistente . This form of intervention, available to victims of criminal offences and their close relatives, enables those concerned to pa rticipate actively in criminal proceedings as an assistant to the prosecuting authorities. In principle, this is the procedure that complainants should use to apply for compensation for damage arising from an offence; however, under certain conditions, whi ch were met in the instant case, they may lodge this request separately with the civil courts. While the criminal proceedings were under way, the applicant applied to the civil courts for compensation for damage resulting from the accident. The criminal pr oceedings ended in a decision that there was no case to answer. In the civil proceedings, the court ruled partially in the applicant’s favour and awarded him compensation.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: This provision is applicable to criminal proceedi ngs in which the applicant participates as an assistente (cf . the Moreira de Azevedo judgment), except in those situations where participation as an assistente is exclusively punitive in purpose. In the instant case, from the moment that the applicant deci ded to bring separate civil proceedings to obtain compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the accident, the criminal proceedings could no longer result in an award of compensation to the complainant, but merely in the possible conviction of th e accused. In the Court’s opinion, the applicant’s decision to bring a civil action amounted to an unequivocal waiver of his civil rights in the context of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in the instant case did not concern the applicant’s civil rights and obligations: incompatible ratione materiae .

[cf. the Perez judgment of 12 February 2004 in which the Court held that Article 6’s applicability to civil-party applications ended where such applications were merely punitive in purpose. See the summary in Case-law Information Note No. 61 of February 2004.]

© 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