issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 134 (2014)  
13.05.2014  
UK courts should have balanced individual property rights against interests of  
general public in case concerning confiscation of wages  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Paulet v. the United Kingdom (application no. 6219/08),  
which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had  
been:  
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on  
Human Rights  
The case concerned the confiscation of Mr Paulet’s wages following his conviction for obtaining  
employment using a false passport. Mr Paulet complained that the confiscation order against him  
had been disproportionate as it amounted to the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four  
years of genuine work, without any distinction being made between his case and those involving  
more serious criminal offences such as drug trafficking or organised crime.  
The Court found that the UK courts’ scope of review of Mr Paulet’s case had been too narrow.  
Notably, they had simply found that the confiscation order against Mr Paulet had been in the public  
interest, without balancing that conclusion against his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions  
as required under the European Convention.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Didier Pierre Paulet, is an Ivoirian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Leeds  
(England).  
Mr Paulet arrived in the United Kingdom in January 2001 and lived illegally at an address in Bedford.  
Between April 2003 and February 2007 he obtained three jobs - with a recruitment agency, in a cash  
and carry business and as a forklift truck driver - using a false French passport.  
On applying for a provisional driving licence in January 2007, Mr Paulet’s passport was discovered  
and criminal proceedings were brought against him. In June 2007 he pleaded guilty in Luton Crown  
Court to, among other offences, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He was  
subsequently sentenced to a total of 17 months’ imprisonment and a confiscation order was  
imposed in the sum of 21,949.60 pounds sterling.  
Mr Paulet argued on appeal that the confiscation order was an abuse of process as it amounted to  
the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four years of genuine work. He submitted in  
particular that a confiscation order could be described as “oppressive” if it did not pursue the  
legitimate aim of stripping defendants of the proceeds of crime, reiterating that Parliament had  
intended the legislation to be compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. His  
appeal was dismissed in July 2009 on the ground that the confiscation order had not amounted to an  
abuse of process as there was not only a link between his earnings and the criminal offences, but  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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  
also a wider public interest in confiscation as he had deliberately circumvented the prohibition  
against him seeking employment in the UK.  
Ultimately, in October 2009 the Court of Appeal refused to certify a point of law of general public  
importance meaning Mr Paulet could not apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.  
Enforcement proceedings have since been brought against Mr Paulet.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on  
Human Rights, Mr Paulet complained that the confiscation order against him had been  
disproportionate, submitting that his case should have been distinguished from cases involving more  
serious criminal offences such as drug trafficking or organised crime.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 February 2008.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), President,  
George Nicolaou (Cyprus),  
Ledi Bianku (Albania),  
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),  
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),  
Paul Mahoney (the United Kingdom),  
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),  
and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)  
It was not in dispute that the confiscation order against Mr Paulet had amounted to an interference  
with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and that such interference by a State was  
allowed under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to “control the use of property to  
secure the payment of penalties”. The Court had to consider, however, whether the proceedings as  
a whole had given Mr Paulet a reasonable opportunity to put his case to the competent authorities  
so that they could establish a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake, namely  
Mr Paulet’s right to protection of his property and the requirements of the general interest.  
The Court noted that Mr Paulet had argued before the national courts that a confiscation order  
would be “oppressive” or an “abuse of process” under domestic law if the benefit figure could  
properly be described as “disproportionate”, either in the traditional sense used in criminal  
proceedings or in the language of the Convention. The Court of Appeal held that the confiscation  
order was not an “abuse of process” as the appropriate link between Mr Paulet’s earnings and his  
criminal offences, in the context of the wider public interest, was plainly established.  
The Court accepted that at the time the applicant brought his complaint before the domestic courts,  
it had been appropriate for him to argue it as he did. In this regard, it noted that it was only in 2012,  
while giving judgment in another confiscation case (R. v. Waya), that the UK Supreme Court found  
that it would be preferable under British law to analyse confiscation cases in terms of proportionality  
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 than for complainants to invoke the concept of “abuse of process”.  
2
Nevertheless, the Court found that as domestic law had only permitted the national courts to  
consider whether or not a confiscation order was “oppressive” or an “abuse of process” at the time  
Mr Paulet’s case was decided, the scope of review carried out by them had been too narrow. As a  
result, the Court concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, there had been a violation of  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.  
Article 41 (just satisfaction)  
The Court held, by five votes to two, that the United Kingdom was to pay Mr Paulet 2,000 euros  
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 to cover the costs and expenses of  
Mr Paulet’s lawyer.  
Separate opinions  
Judges Bianku, Kalaydjieva, Mahoney and Wojtyczek expressed separate opinions which are  
annexed to the judgment.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
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 here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHRpress.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
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.  
3