PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 33402/96) against the French Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Ali Riza Göktan (“the applicant”), on 11 March 1996.

2. The applicant was represented before the Court by

Ms M.-C. Reminiac, of the Bourg-en-Bresse Bar, and Mr T. Beygo, of the Istanbul Bar. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dubrocard, Head of the Human Rights Office, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. 4. On 1 November 1998 the application was transferred to the Court after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 6. By a decision of 27 November 2001, the Chamber declared the application partly admissible. 7. The Government, but not the applicant, filed written observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 8. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1953 and currently lives in Turkey.

He entered France in 1974. At the material time, he worked for a business in Strasbourg.

On 15 March 1991 he and another person, M. B., were arrested by officers from the Strasbourg Regional Police Department (“the SRPJ”) and customs officers on the verge of concluding a drugs deal with a couple, who managed to make their getaway.

The applicant consistently protested his innocence, saying that he had been the victim of a put-up job by customs officers. He explained that he had agreed to act as an “informer”, and in that capacity had cooperated with J.-F. R. of the SRPJ and J.-P. C., a customs inspector and the person allegedly behind his arrest. As for the couple who had “escaped” arrest by the police, they were in fact both customs officers, known as “Maud” and “Serge”.

On 18 March 1991 the applicant was charged with drug trafficking and detained. On 3 June 1991 he was brought before the Strasbourg Criminal Court, which on 25 June 1991 sentenced him and M.B. to the following penalties: (a) five years' imprisonment for the criminal offences of importing, purchasing, possessing and transporting drugs, attempting to supply drugs, and importing, possessing and dealing in drugs without a licence; (b) an order permanently excluding them from French territory; and (c) an order requiring them to pay 1,070,000 French francs (FRF) in lieu of confiscation and a customs fine of FRF 400,000 that was imposed jointly and severally for the customs offence of illegally importing goods.

The Strasbourg Criminal Court also made an order under Article 382 of the Customs Code in the same judgment for the defendants' imprisonment if the sums were not paid.

On 27 June 1991 the public prosecutor sought an order for two years' imprisonment in default, as the customs fine had not been paid.

On 5 November 1991 the Criminal Appeals Division of the Colmar Court of Appeal upheld the Criminal Court's judgment in its entirety, as regards the issues of both criminal law and customs law.

On 6 November 1991 the applicant decided to appeal to the Court of Cassation; however, he later withdrew his appeal and the case was struck out of the Court of Cassation's list on 3 February 1992.

On 4 September 1994 the applicant completed his prison sentence. However, he remained in custody pursuant to the order requiring him to serve two years' imprisonment in default of payment of the customs fine of FRF 1,470,000. He made an urgent application to the President of the Mulhouse tribunal de grande instance, arguing that the order for his imprisonment in default was defective, as the Customs Office had failed to serve him with a demand for payment. The urgent-applications judge dismissed that application in an order of 27 September 1994. In a judgment of 28 November 1994 the Colmar Court of Appeal upheld that order for the following reasons: “Under Article 388 of the Customs Code the court may make an express order for a person who has been convicted of a [customs] offence or offence relating to indirect taxation to remain in custody, even if an ordinary appeal or appeal on points of law has been lodged, until he or she has paid the fiscal penalties imposed on him or her. The courts have consistently held that customs law is a special branch of law and an exception to the general law. In the present case, the express reference in the Customs Code to the Code of Criminal Procedure relates only to the length of the imprisonment in default. Consequently, since the Criminal Court made an express order – upheld by the Court of Appeal – under Article 388 of the Customs Code for enforcement of the order for imprisonment on the ground of anticipatory default, the provisions of Articles 749 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving the President of the tribunal de grande instance jurisdiction to hear urgent applications are inapplicable.”

On 26 October 1994 the Court of Cassation ruled that the applicant's appeal on points of law against that decision had lapsed, as he had not lodged written pleadings in support of his appeal within the statutory time-limit.

On 14 March 1996 the applicant made an application for an order for the prison sentence and the term of imprisonment in default to run concurrently, arguing that he was serving two prison sentences for the same offence.

He alleged a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, which sets out the non bis in idem rule, and of Article 6 of the Convention. He relied in particular on the Court's judgment in Jamil v. France (judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 317-B), in which imprisonment in default was found to constitute a “penalty” for the purposes of the Convention.

In a judgment of 21 May 1996 the Colmar Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application on the grounds that, firstly, “the European Court of Human Rights' judgments are declaratory and therefore not binding on the trial court, which is only required to apply the European Convention on Human Rights”; and, secondly, “imprisonment in default possesses the legal characteristics not of a penalty, but of a means of enforcement attached to the financial penalties whose recovery they are intended to secure”. The Court of Appeal concluded from that that Article 5 of the former Criminal Code, which required sentences to run concurrently, had not been infringed by the trial court and could not enable a prison sentence and term of imprisonment in default to be served concurrently.

On 22 May 1996 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against that judgment. In a judgment of 16 September 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal for the following reasons: “The appellant cannot validly argue that, by sitting in private in accordance with Article 711 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of Appeal infringed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ... The requirement for a public hearing laid down by that provision applies only to proceedings for 'the determination of a criminal charge' and cannot therefore be relied on with respect to proceedings relating, as in the instance case, to an application for a ruling that sentences be served concurrently ... The impugned judgment and procedural documents show that the appellant, Ali Göktan, was found guilty of an offence under the drug-trafficking and customs-offences legislation and, inter alia, sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a customs fine. After being ordered to serve two years' imprisonment in default of payment, he made an application for a ruling that that term should run concurrently with the prison sentence. In dismissing that application, the Court of Appeal found, in particular, that imprisonment in default possesses the legal characteristics not of a penalty, but of a means of enforcement attached to the financial penalties whose recovery they are intended to secure. In these circumstances, the Court of Appeal has justified its decision and the alleged grievance is without foundation ...”

The applicant, who has now completed all the sentences he was required to serve, was deported to Turkey, where he came from, pursuant to the permanent exclusion order.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e1
001-60555_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
33402/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e2
001-60555_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
French Republic
ETHNIC
check
001-60555_a11_e3
001-60555_a11_em3
DEM
QUASI
Turkish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e4
001-60555_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ali Riza Göktan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e5
001-60555_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e6
001-60555_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms M.-C. Reminiac
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60555_a11_e7
001-60555_a11_em7
ORG
NO_MASK
Bourg-en-Bresse Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e8
001-60555_a11_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Beygo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e9
001-60555_a11_em9
ORG
QUASI
Istanbul Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e2
001-60555_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-60555_a11_em2
French Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e10
001-60555_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs M. Dubrocard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e11
001-60555_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e12
001-60555_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of Legal Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e13
001-60555_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e14
001-60555_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e15
001-60555_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e16
001-60555_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
1953
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e17
001-60555_a11_em18
LOC
QUASI
Turkey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e18
001-60555_a11_em19
LOC
NO_MASK
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e19
001-60555_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
1974
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e20
001-60555_a11_em21
LOC
QUASI
Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e21
001-60555_a11_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e22
001-60555_a11_em23
PERSON
NO_MASK
M. B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e23
001-60555_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Strasbourg Regional Police Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e23
001-60555_a11_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
001-60555_a11_em24
SRPJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e24
001-60555_a11_em26
PERSON
NO_MASK
J.-F. R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e23
001-60555_a11_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
SRPJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e25
001-60555_a11_em28
PERSON
NO_MASK
J.-P. C.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60555_a11_e26
001-60555_a11_em29
PERSON
NO_MASK
Maud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60555_a11_e27
001-60555_a11_em30
PERSON
NO_MASK
Serge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e28
001-60555_a11_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
18 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e29
001-60555_a11_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e30
001-60555_a11_em33
ORG
QUASI
Strasbourg Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e31
001-60555_a11_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e32
001-60555_a11_em35
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e33
001-60555_a11_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
five years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e34
001-60555_a11_em37
QUANTITY
QUASI
1,070,000 French francs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e35
001-60555_a11_em38
QUANTITY
QUASI
FRF 400,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e30
001-60555_a11_em39
ORG
QUASI
Strasbourg Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e36
001-60555_a11_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
27 June 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e37
001-60555_a11_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e38
001-60555_a11_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
5 November 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e39
001-60555_a11_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Appeals Division of the Colmar Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e40
001-60555_a11_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e41
001-60555_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
6 November 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e42
001-60555_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e43
001-60555_a11_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation's
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e44
001-60555_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
3 February 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e45
001-60555_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
4 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e37
001-60555_a11_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e46
001-60555_a11_em51
QUANTITY
QUASI
FRF 1,470,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e47
001-60555_a11_em52
ORG
QUASI
Mulhouse tribunal de grande
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e48
001-60555_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Customs Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e49
001-60555_a11_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
27 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e50
001-60555_a11_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
28 November 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e51
001-60555_a11_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
Colmar Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e40
001-60555_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e52
001-60555_a11_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e53
001-60555_a11_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
26 October 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e42
001-60555_a11_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e54
001-60555_a11_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60555_a11_e55
001-60555_a11_em62
MISC
NO_MASK
Jamil v. France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e56
001-60555_a11_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
8 June 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e57
001-60555_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
21 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e51
001-60555_a11_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Colmar Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e58
001-60555_a11_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights'
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e52
001-60555_a11_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e59
001-60555_a11_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
22 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e42
001-60555_a11_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e60
001-60555_a11_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
16 September 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e42
001-60555_a11_em71
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e52
001-60555_a11_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e4
001-60555_a11_em73
PERSON
DIRECT
001-60555_a11_em4
Ali Göktan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e33
001-60555_a11_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
five years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e37
001-60555_a11_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e52
001-60555_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60555_a11_e52
001-60555_a11_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60555_a11_e17
001-60555_a11_em78
LOC
QUASI
Turkey
Ali Riza Göktan
FRA
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Ali Riza Göktan