Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57

October 2003

Baars v. the Netherlands - 44320/98

Judgment 28.10.2003 [Section II]

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Refusal of costs and compensation for detention on remand, following discontinuation of criminal proceedings, on the ground that the person would probably have been convicted: violation

Facts : Criminal proceedings were brought against the appl icant on charges of forgery and being an accessory to bribery of a public official. The prosecution was, however, declared inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not been tried within a reasonable time. In separate proceedings, in which the appl icant appeared as a witness, the public official was convicted. The applicant sought his costs and expenses, as well as compensation for the period which he had spent in detention on remand. The claims were rejected and the Court of Appeal dismissed the ap plicant’s appeal. It was of the view that the applicant had forged the document in question and that, if the prosecution had proceeded, he would “in all likelihood” have been convicted.

Law : Article 6 § 2 – A decision refusing reimbursement of an accused’s costs following termination of criminal proceedings may raise an issue under this provision if there is reasoning which amounts in substance to a determination of guilt. In the similar case of Lutzv. Germany (Series A no. 123), the court decisions describ ed a “state of suspicion” and did not contain any finding of guilt. In the present case, however, it could not be said that the Court of Appeal had merely indicated that there were still strong suspicions concerning the applicant; its reasoning amounted in substance to a determination of the applicant’s guilt without him having been “found guilty according to law”. The reasoning was based on findings in proceedings against another person, in which the applicant had participated only as a witness, without th e protection of Article 6.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.

© 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