HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
1. The facts
The applicant is the wife of a man who was criminally convicted of breach of trust. In the context of these proceedings, two properties belonging to the spouses’ matrimonial community were seized and subsequently confiscated. The applicant challenged this confiscation because she herself had never been prosecuted or criminally convicted.
2. The complaint raised
The applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. She considered that the confiscation constituted a disproportionate interference with her right to property, in particular because she claimed to have acted in good faith and to have been unaware of the illicit origin of the funds used.
According to her, the properties had been acquired with lawfully obtained funds before the period corresponding to the offences committed by her husband. She also pointed out that no domestic court had established that she was aware of his actions. Finally, she complained that the French courts had not allowed her to submit her observations before the confiscation was ordered.
The French Government acknowledged that the confiscation constituted an interference with the right to property, but considered that it was provided for by law and pursued a legitimate aim. In particular, it argued that the properties had been improved using funds derived from the offences and that the confiscation was intended to prevent crime from generating a financial benefit.
3. The Court’s reasoning
The Court recalled that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains three rules concerning the right to property. It specified that, according to its established case-law, a confiscation measure must be examined as a regulation of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of that provision, even if it effectively results in a deprivation of property.
The Court considered that the interference was provided for by law, in particular by Article 131-21 of the French Criminal Code. It also found that the confiscation pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest: combating crime and preventing offenders from retaining or benefiting from the proceeds of their criminal activities. In this regard, the Court recalled the importance of confiscation in the fight against crime.
The essential question therefore became one of proportionality. The Court had to determine whether a fair balance had been struck between the public interest and the protection of the applicant’s right to property. It recalled that a measure is disproportionate when it imposes a “special and excessive burden” on the person concerned. It also took into account the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in this area.
The Court noted that, as a matter of French law, the properties belonged to the spouses’ matrimonial community and not personally to either the applicant or her husband. Nevertheless, it found that the community had substantially benefited from funds derived from the offences. More than EUR 338,000 obtained through the misappropriation of funds had, in particular, been used to renovate and improve the properties, while the couple’s official income amounted to approximately EUR 3,400 per month.
The Court acknowledged that the applicant had not formally been a party to the criminal proceedings and had therefore not been able to submit her observations before the confiscation was ordered. However, it noted that she was aware of the proceedings, that the seizure orders had been served on her, and that she had subsequently been able to challenge the confiscation through specific proceedings. She could also benefit, upon the dissolution of the matrimonial community, from a right to compensation (“récompense”) intended to compensate for the financial loss suffered by the community.
The Court ultimately concluded that the confiscation had not imposed a “special and excessive burden” on the applicant. Despite the fact that she had not been criminally convicted, the properties had substantially benefited from the proceeds of the offences committed by her husband. Furthermore, she had access to certain remedies and to a compensation mechanism upon the dissolution of the matrimonial community. The Court therefore considered that a fair balance had been struck between the public interest and the applicant’s rights.
4. The Court’s decision
Unanimously, the Court declared the application admissible but found that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
To access the judgment, please follow the link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-252034%22]}.