Funke v. France

Last updated September 30, 2022

Funke v. France was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in September 1992, with the court publishing its judgement on 25 February 1993. The case was given to the Court in December 1991, the application had been made in February 1984, and related to events occurring in 1980.

Background

Jean-Gustave Funke had brought a case against France, arguing that the nation had breached the European Convention on Human Rights. The demand that he produce documents was an attempt to compel self-incrimination and breached his right to silence (Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2), and the search of his home was conducted without sufficient safeguards to prevent a breach of his right to privacy (Article 8). Following his death in July 1987, the case was continued by his wife Ruth.

Funke, in 1980 a resident of Lingolsheim, had been visited on 14 January of that year by three customs officers and an officier de police judiciaire. They were investigating tax evasion claims raised by government authorities in Metz. After questioning Funke they spent five and a half hours searching his home; a number of financial documents, a car-repair bill, and two cameras were seized.

The customs officials' seizures did not lead to proceedings in regard to the cause of their investigations (the possible breach of regulations concerning financial dealings with foreign countries), but did result in the officials demanding further document disclosure by Funke - of financial statements relating to specific accounts in the proceeding three years (1977-79) and to the purchase of a house in Schonach. Funke initially promised to provide the documents but shortly afterwards declined to do so.

In April 1982, customs authorities applied to the Strasbourg District Court for an attachment to Funke's property of 100,220 French franc (FRF). This was in part in lieu of the confiscation of undeclared funds, and in part for the payment of a fine due to breaches of the Custom Code. The court granted the order five days later.

Legal challenges

Funke then began two separate legal challenges, one against the demand for document disclosure, and one against the attachment. The legal clash over the demand for documents was the case considered by the ECtHR.

In May 1982, Funke was summoned to the police court in Strasbourg. The customs authorities were demanding a fine, a daily incrementing penalty, and a term in prison for Funke due to his failure to cooperate without good reason. In September 1982, the court imposed a fine of 1,200 FRF on Funke and ordered that he deliver the requested bank documents or face a daily penalty (astreinte) of 20 FRF. Funke appealed the decision.

Funke's appeal was based on the ECHR Article 6 and Article 8. His arguments were dismissed by the Colmar Court of Appeal in March 1983 - a public authority can interfere with the rights "so long as it is in accordance with the law and ... is necessary in ... the interests of the economic well-being of the country or for the prevention of disorder or crime." The court increased the daily fine for non-compliance to 50 FRF. Funke appealed again and his case was dismissed by the Court of Cassation (Criminal Division) in November 1983, on identical grounds to the Colmar Court of Appeal.

European Court of Human Rights

In February 1984 Funke applied to the ECtHR. He complained that his conviction for a refusal to produce documents was a breach of his right to a fair trial (Article 6-1), the initial demand was a violation of the right not to give evidence against oneself and the subsequent proceedings against him were an attempt to compel him, when the French government could have sought other means to obtain any documents. Funke also held that the trial was not held within a reasonable time (6-1) and did not regard the presumption of innocence (6-2). He also claimed that the search was a breach of his right to respect for his privacy (Article 8).

In the interim Funke refused to pay the pecuniary penalty for non-compliance and in January 1985 a garnishment notice was served to retrieve 10,750 FRF from Funke's bank account, covering fines for May-December 1984. He contested this decision at the Strasbourg District Court in March 1985. That court upheld the notice but Funke appealed. In February 1989 the Colmar Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the district court and removed the notice. The custom authorities appealed this decision on points of law to the Court of Cassation, which upheld the decision that a garnishment notice could not be used for customs penalties.

Verdict

The application to the ECtHR was accepted as admissible in October 1988 and the Commission reported in October 1991. They expressed the opinion that there had been no breach of 6-1 (7-5 on fair trial and 8-4 on timely proceedings), no breach of 6-2 (9-3), and no breach of 8-1 or 8-2 (4-4, with the President using a casting vote).

The Court agreed that the initial request for documents and the subsequent penalties were not unreasonable or contrary to the right of a fair trial - the request was a balanced part of a declaratory regime which saved individuals from strict and systematic investigation in return for their accepting certain duties and requirements; the subsequent penalties were a consequence of the refusal to cooperate.

However the Court decided that the customs authorities using the conviction of Funke in order to compel him to produce documents they believed to exist, without trying to procure the documents by other means, was a breach of Article 6-1. Despite the Custom Code allowing the authorities' actions, they were clear infringement of the individual's right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself. The Court saw no need to also investigate if there had been a breach of 6-2, relating to the presumption of innocence or if the interim orders had been made within a reasonable time.

The Court also found that the French government had breached Article 8-1 in respect to Funke's right to "respect for his private... life, his home and his correspondence," but that the breaches were reasonable under 8-2 as the Custom code had been tightened by case-law and subsequently amended (reform of 1986-89), further there was no requirement in the Convention disputing the ex post facto supervision of searches. There had however been a breach under Article 8 due to the lack of sufficient safeguards in the Custom Code legislation to prevent disproportionate interference in an individual's rights.

The Court awarded the applicant 50,000 FRF for non-pecuniary damages (Article 50) and 70,000 FRF towards his legal costs.

The Court decisions were by majority. There had been a breach of Funke's right to a fair trial (8-1 Article 6-1); that the other complaints under Article 6 should not be examined (8-1); and there had been a breach of Funke's right to privacy (8-1, Article 8).

External links

ECHR judgment

Related Research Articles

The European Court of Human Rights, also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the Convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

Extradition is an action wherein one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other's law enforcement. It is a cooperative law enforcement procedure between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them. In addition to legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

The Supreme Court of Ireland is the highest judicial authority in Ireland. It is a court of final appeal and exercises, in conjunction with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, judicial review over Acts of the Oireachtas. The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Constitution of Ireland by governmental bodies and private citizens. It sits in the Four Courts in Dublin.

Dudgeon v the United Kingdom (1981) was a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, which held that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which criminalised male homosexual acts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was significant

as the first successful case before the ECtHR on the criminalisation of male homosexuality
as the case which led to legislation in 1982 bringing the law on male homosexuality in Northern Ireland into line with that in Scotland and in England and Wales ;
as a lead-in to Norris v. Ireland, a later case before the ECtHR argued by Mary Robinson, which challenged the continued application of the same 1885 law in the Republic of Ireland; and,
for setting the legal precedent that ultimately resulted in the Council of Europe requiring that no member state could criminalise male or female homosexual behaviour.

John Murray v United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 1996 regarding the right to silence in the United Kingdom, especially the legality of the reduction in the right so as to allow for adverse inferences to be made.

The AIRE Centre is an English registered charity, with offices located in London. It provides free legal advice on human rights and EU law issues in Europe, and seeks to promote the dissemination of information about international human rights law throughout Europe.

Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1989) is a landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which established that extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition to the precedence established by the judgment, the judgment specifically resulted in the United States committing to not seek the death penalty against the German national involved in the case, and he was eventually extradited to the United States.

<i>Campbell v MGN Ltd</i> 2004 House of Lords decision on privacy in English law

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd[2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to Freedom of Expression and Information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

Saunders v. the United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence as included in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2.

Benthem vNetherlands was a European Court of Human Rights case on the right to a fair trial. It concerned the grant of a permit by a municipal authority, with which the Dutch Government, then referred to as the Crown in legal cases, disagreed. Several legal proceedings were brought in respect of this permit, which were ultimately decided by the Government itself, under the Kroonberoep procedure.

D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning discrimination of Romani children in the education system of the Czech Republic. It was the first case of racial segregation in education to be considered by the ECtHR. As of 2021 the case is still pending at the Committee of Ministers and has not been resolved by the Czech authorities.

Ciubotaru v. Moldova was a case decided by European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Mihai Ciubotaru sought to have his ethnicity changed from Moldovan to Romanian on his birth and marriage certificates, which Moldova refused. The Court found that Moldova's procedure for changing ethnicity of record violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008.

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

Saadi v Italy was a case of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in February 2008, in which the Court unanimously reaffirmed and extended principles established in Chahal v United Kingdom regarding the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement and the obligations of a state under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.