issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 096 (2012)  
08.03.2012  
Inability to challenge denial of request for exemption from  
road-traffic fine breached right of access to a court  
In today’s Chamber judgments in the cases of Cadène v. France (application  
no. 12039/08) and Célice v. France (no. 14166/09), which are not final1, the European  
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human  
Rights.  
The case concerned two French drivers who complained that the denial by the public  
prosecutor of their requests for exemption from fines had deprived them of their right to  
the determination of a criminal charge against them by an independent and impartial  
tribunal.  
Principal facts  
The applicants are Jean Cadène, a French national who was born in 1936 and lives in  
Perpignan, and Damien Célice, a French national who was born in 1970 and lives in  
Paris. Their cars were caught by speed cameras in August 2007 and June 2008  
respectively, following which they received notice that they had committed a minor  
offence under the Road-Traffic Code and had to pay a standard fine of 68 euros.  
After paying the amount of the fine by way of deposit, Mr Cadène applied to the public  
prosecutor’s office to be exempted from the penalty, complying with the requisite time-  
limit and formalities, arguing that he was unable to recognise any offence without  
receiving the photograph identifying the person responsible. Mr Célice did the same,  
claiming that he had not been the driver at the time of the offence.  
In a letter of 19 October 2007 a police superintendant of the prosecution service  
declared inadmissible Mr Cadène’s application for exemption on the ground that it did  
not give reasons. In a letter of 3 September 2008 Mr Célice received a similar letter,  
declaring his application inadmissible because it had not been accompanied by an explicit  
denial of responsibility for the offence. In both cases, the deposit was retained as  
payment of the fine itself.  
On 31 December 2007 and 21 November 2008, respectively, the Interior Ministry  
informed the applicants that the offences had been established as a result of their  
payment of the fine and that they would consequently lose one point from their licence.  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month  
period following their delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of  
innocence), the applicants complained that there had been a violation of their right to  
the determination of a criminal charge against them by an independent and impartial  
tribunal and a breach of their right to be presumed innocent.  
The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights respectively on  
29 February 2008 and 26 February 2009.  
The judgments were given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,  
Elisabet Fura (Sweden),  
Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic),  
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),  
Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),  
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),  
André Potocki (France), Judges,  
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 6 § 1  
The Government had argued that the two applications were inadmissible on account of a  
failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as the applicants could have appealed against the  
enforcement of the penalty in a community court (juridiction de proximité). In the Célice  
case, the Government further argued that the applicant could also have brought  
proceedings to establish State liability for shortcomings in the justice system.  
The Court reiterated that only remedies capable of providing effective redress for an  
alleged violation had to be exhausted. It first observed that the applicants had not had  
access to the community court procedure, as that could only be used to appeal against  
enforceable fines after addition of the surcharge. As to a claim of State liability, such  
proceedings did not entail any judicial review of the “charge” capable of providing  
redress for the alleged violation. The Court thus dismissed the Government’s arguments  
on this point and declared the applications admissible.  
On the merits, the Court pointed out that the right to a court, of which the right of  
access was one aspect, was not absolute; it was subject to limitations permitted by  
implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal were  
concerned. However, these limitations could not restrict or reduce a person’s access in  
such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired. They  
must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of  
proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.  
In the applicant’s case the Court observed, firstly, that the official from the public  
prosecutor’s office, a police superintendent, had declared inadmissible the applicants’  
applications for exemption on erroneous grounds, namely, because Mr Cadène’s  
application had not given reasons and that of Mr Célice had not explicitly denied  
responsibility for the offence. On the appropriate application form, the applicants had, in  
fact, clearly indicated that they denied having committed the offence and, in a  
supporting letter, had duly explained their reasons. In addition, the Government had not  
disputed the fact that the police superintendant, whose discretionary power was confined  
to examining the formal admissibility of the application, had misused his authority.  
2
Moreover, in both cases, the inadmissibility decision of the public prosecutor’s office had  
led to the retention of the deposit, which was equivalent to the amount of the standard  
fine. Thus, in spite of the applicants’ challenge, the process had led to the completion of  
the public prosecution without any determination of the “criminal charge” or the hearing  
of the applicants’ arguments by a “tribunal”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the  
Convention. Accordingly, the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court  
had been impaired.  
Lastly, the Court took note of the decision by the French Constitutional Council2 to the  
effect that, where an official of the prosecution service declared inadmissible an  
application for exemption from a standard fine, after the deposit had been paid, and  
where that declaration had the effect of converting the deposit into the fine itself, the  
inability to appeal against such a decision before the community court was incompatible  
with the “right to an effective judicial remedy”.  
The Court thus found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.  
Article 6 § 2  
Mr Célice had argued that the obligation to pay a deposit in order to submit an  
application for exemption or an appeal to the public prosecutor breached the right to be  
presumed innocent. On this point the Court confirmed its previous case-law, reiterating  
that the fact of subjecting the admissibility of such an application or appeal to the prior  
payment of a deposit corresponding to the amount of the standard fine did not, as such,  
entail a violation of Article 6 § 2. The Court thus declared this part of the application  
inadmissible.  
Mr Cadène had complained that, by refusing to send him the photographic evidence in  
support of the charge against him, the public prosecutor’s office had deprived him of the  
possibility of defending himself, in breach of his right to be presumed innocent. In view  
of its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, the Court found that no separate question  
arose under Article 6 § 2.  
Article 41  
Under this Article the Court held in particular that the finding of a violation constituted  
sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.  
The judgments are available only in French.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
2
decision no. 2010-38 QPC (preliminary ruling on constitutionality) of 29 September 2010  
3
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
4