Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF FUNKE v. FRANCECONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER CONCERNING PARAGRAPHS 41-44 OF THE JUDGMENT

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: February 25, 1993

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

CASE OF FUNKE v. FRANCECONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER CONCERNING PARAGRAPHS 41-44 OF THE JUDGMENT

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: February 25, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

I have voted against the finding of a violation of Articles 6 and 8 (art. 6, art. 8) of the Convention in this case. My reasons are much the same as those set out by the majority of the Commission in its report.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER CONCERNING PARAGRAPHS 41-44 OF THE JUDGMENT

(Translation)

Although I voted in favour of finding that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), I should none the less like to point out the following. Under the fiscal legislation (on taxes, customs and exchange control), a person who does not submit the required returns or does not produce documents relating to them within the time-limits laid down in law (or by the authorities) has pecuniary penalties ( astreintes ) in the form of "reasonable" fines imposed on him or else his tax liability is estimated - also in a "reasonable" manner - by the appropriate authorities. This is not in itself inconsistent either with the requirements of a fair trial or with the presumption of innocence (in the sense that one cannot be obliged to give evidence against oneself).

Rules of this kind are indeed common in the countries of Europe .

In the present case, however, the French authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant in order to have a pecuniary penalty imposed on him, and this went beyond what I consider to be compatible with the principles I have just set out.

[*]  The case is numbered 82/1991/334/407.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]    As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 256-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846