[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mathony v Luxembourg - 15048/03 [2010] ECHR 519 (4 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/519.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 519

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)7¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Mathony against Luxembourg

(Application No. 15048/03, judgment of 15 February 2007, final on 15 May 2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a lack of objective impartiality of a criminal court, due to the fact that the judges who convicted the applicant had already assessed the applicant’s acts before, in other proceedings (violation of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)7

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Mathony against Luxembourg

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant and in particular the lack of objective impartiality of the court which convicted him (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

In March 2001, the applicant was caught driving without a licence, his licence having been withdrawn. His car was temporarily seized and the magistrates refused to grant him the lifting of this seizure. In July 2001 the applicant was disqualified from driving for 12 months and his vehicle was confiscated. He appealed against the disqualification.

By judgment of 17 December 2001, final on 21 November 2002 after the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeal, composed of the same judges who had refused the request for lifting of the seizure, upheld the first-instance judgment.

The Court considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the impartiality of the trial court could have been open to genuine doubt in that the same judges had previously refused the applicant’s request for the release of his car from seizure, basing their decision in particular on the applicant’s conduct and the “gravity of the offence”. It therefore found that the applicant’s fears in that regard could be considered objectively justified.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The driving ban has expired and the non-pecuniary damage sustained was compensated by the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court. Moreover, even if the European Court considered the applicant’s fears objectively justified, it did not find in this case any subjective impartiality. Thus it does not seem that the violation arose from shortcomings sufficiently serious to raise any real doubt as to the outcome of the domestic proceedings in question.

II. General measures

The European Court recalled that the mere fact that a judge had already taken decisions before the trial does not, as such, justify doubts as to his or her impartiality. The finding of the Court in this case was related to the specific circumstances of the case: the judges who convicted the applicant had in fact already given their opinion on the applicant’s behaviour prior to the criminal proceedings, when they examined his request for the restitution of his car (See for example a contrario the decision of 18/01/2001 in Revoldini and others against Luxembourg).

The judgment of the European Court was sent by the Ministry of Justice, on 03/05/2007, to the State Prosecutor General, who was asked to disseminate it to the magistrates concerned. The State Prosecutor General confirmed that the judgment had indeed been sent to all magistrates concerned. The judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice. Finally, the judgment has also been published in Codex - March 2007 (www.codex-online.com). The authorities of Luxembourg indicated that it will now be for the domestic courts which grant direct effect to the Convention, and in particular for criminal courts, to ensure - with respect to the composition of the relevant court in each case - that the Mathony judgment is respected.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no measure is required in respect of the applicant, that similar violations will be prevented by the direct effect granted by the domestic courts to the Convention and the European Court’s case-law, and that Luxembourg has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.