Law and relevant articles Quotations

(e)Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it:

LAW. The applicant’s case was distinguished from a number of earlier cases in which the Court had been prepared to consider confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore beyond the scope of Article 6 (2). The features common to those cases were that the applicants have been convicted of drugs offences; that they continued to be suspected of additional drugs offences and demonstrably held assets whose provenance could not be established; that these assets were reasonably presumed to have been obtained through illegal activity; and that the applicants had failed to provide a satisfactory alternative explanation. There were, however, two different features to the instant case: firstly, the applicant had never been shown to hold any assets whose provenance he could not adequately explain, as the court of appeal’s finding on this issue was based on conjectural extrapolation contained in a police report. “Confiscation” following on from a conviction was inappropriate for assets which were not known to have been in the possession of the person concerned, especially if it related to a criminal act of which that person has not actually been found guilty. If it was not found beyond reasonable doubt that the person concerned had actually committed the crime, and if it could not be established as fact that any advantage, illegal or otherwise, had actually been obtained, such a measure could only be based on a presumption of guilt. Secondly, the confiscation order related to the very crimes of which the applicant had in fact been acquitted. Article 6 (2) embodied a general rule which did not allow even the voicing of suspicions regarding an accused’s innocence once an acquittal was final. Since the court of appeal’s finding went beyond the voicing of mere suspicion, the applicant’s guilt had been determined without his having been “found guilty according to law”.

Conclusion: violation.

Article 41. Reserved: it being unclear how many installments the applicant had paid under the confiscation order.

NOTES:

asset – имущество

provenance - происхождение, источник

to presume - предполагать, полагать; допускать; считать доказанным

(f) Read the text again and copy the sentences that mean the following:

1) Дело заявителя отличается от целого ряда более ранних дел, в которых Суд был готов рассматривать вопрос о конфискации имущества. 2) Однако в данном деле было два отличия. 3) Во первых, так и не было показано, что заявитель обладал имуществом, происхождение которого он не мог адекватно объяснить. 4) «Конфискация» вследствие осуждения подсудимого неприменима в отношении имущества, владение которым со стороны данного лица не установлено. 5) Во вторых, ордер на конфискацию имеет отношение к тем самым преступлениям, по которым заявитель был оправдан.

(g) Give Russian equivalents to the following sentences:

1) The applicant’s case was distinguished from a number of earlier cases in which the Court had been prepared to consider confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore beyond the scope of Article 6 (2). 2) The features common to those cases were that the applicants have been convicted of drugs offences; that they continued to be suspected of additional drugs offences and demonstrably held assets whose provenance could not be established; 3) If it was not found beyond reasonable doubt that the person concerned had actually committed the crime, and if it could not be established as fact that any advantage, illegal or otherwise, had actually been obtained, such a measure could only be based on a presumption of guilt. 4) Since the court of appeal’s finding went beyond the voicing of mere suspicion, the applicant’s guilt had been determined without his having been “found guilty according to law”.

Answer the questions and make a brief summary of the text:

1) What is case IV about?

2) What kind of and how many offences had been heard in courts?

3) Which of the court or judge measures were qualified as ‘violation’? Why?

4) Which of the court or judge measures were qualified as ‘no violation’? Why?

5) What was the European Court of Human Rights final decision?

6) What is your opinion about what had happened?

7) What do you think about the European Court’s conclusion?

8) What would be your final judgment if you were an EC judge?

CASE V