Papon v. France
| Court |
European Court of Human Rights, France |
| Case number |
54210/00 |
| Decision title |
Judgment |
| Decision date |
25 July 2002 |
| Parties |
- Maurice Papon
- Republic of France
|
| Categories |
Crimes against humanity |
| Keywords |
crimes against humanity, deprivation of liberty, Murder |
| Links |
|
back to topSummary
Maurice Papon was a civil servant in Occupied France during World War II holding the position of Secretary-General of the Gironde prefecture.
The Assize Court of Gironde – a criminal trial court hearing cases of defendants accused with the most serious crimes – convicted Papon of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for having aided and abetted the unlawful arrest and detention of hundreds of Jewish persons from 1942 until 1944, who were eventually deported and exterminated at Auschwitz. Pursuant to French criminal law, Papon was under an obligation to surrender to the custody of the Court as a result. Having applied for an exemption to the obligation to surrender and having been denied, Papon left France for Switzerland. However, the Swiss authorities extradited Papon. Upon his arrival in France, the Court of Cassation held that Papon had forfeited his right to appeal his conviction on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the obligation to surrender.
Papon took his case to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the provision in the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided the grounds upon which his right to appeal was forfeited, violated his right of access to a court under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court agreed and ordered the French State to pay Papon damages.
back to topProcedural history
On 14 January 2000, the applicant, Maurice Papon, lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights against the Republic of France complaining that the length of the criminal proceedings against him in France, their unfairness, non-compliance with the principles of presumption of innocence and non-retroactivity of the criminal law violated his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, he argued that he was denied access to the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation).
By a decision of 15 November 2001, the Court declared the application admissible in so far as it related to the lack of access to the Court of Cassation on account of the applicant having forfeited his right to appeal on points of law and the lack of any ordinary appeal. The remaining complaints were declared inadmissible.
back to topRelated developments
On 18 September 2002, the Court of Appeal of Paris ordered Papon to be released on health grounds (see Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 'Ailing Maurice Papon Requests Freedom', 3 September 2002; and RTE, 'France Releases Nazi Collaborator Papon', 18 September 2002).
On 11 June 2004, the French Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence pronounced by the Assize Court of Gironde, making it irreversible.
Maurice Papon died on 17 February 2007. See The New York Times, 'Maurice Papon, Convicted Vichy Official, 96, Dies', 18 February 2007.
back to topLegally relevant facts
From May 1942 until August 1944, the applicant was the secretary-general of the Gironde prefecture in Occupied France under the authority of the prefect, Maurice Sabatier (para. 9).
On 2 April 1998, the Gironde Assize Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of Jewish persons deported in the convot transports of July, August and October 1942 and January 1994 from Bordeaux to Auschwitz; such offences constittued crimes against humanity (para. 71).
The applicant appealed the judgment.On 17 September 1999 and 4 October 1999, the applicant lodged an application with the Assize Court and the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux to be exempt from the obligation to surrender to custody. The former held it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, the latter dismissed the application (paras. 75, 77).
The applicant did not surrender to custody and left France for Switzerland. The Swiss authorities ordered him to leave, on an unknown date (para. 78). On 21 October 1999, the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation held that the applicant had forfeited his right to appeal against the judgment of the Assize Court pursuant to Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of France on the ground that he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment but had not surrendered to custody and had not been exempted from that obligation (para. 79).
On 20 December 2000, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeals of the applicant against the judgments of the Assize Court and the Indictment Division in relation to his application to be exempt from the obligation to surrender to custody as the applicant had since forfeited his rights to appeal (para. 80).
back to topCore legal questions
- Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (since repealed) provided that convicted persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year who have not surrendered to custody or have not been exempted, with or without payment of a security, from surrendering to custody by the court that tried them shall forfeit their right of appeal on points of law. Does this provision breach the applicant’s right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights?
back to topSpecific legal rules and provisions
- Articles 583, 626(1) and 626(4) of the French Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
back to topCourt's holding and analysis
The right to a court, of which the right of access is one facet, is not absolute but may be subject to implied limitations, notably as regards the requirements for an appeal to be admissible. However, any limitations must not restrict the right of access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. A limitation is only compatible with Article 6(1) of the Convention if it pursues a legitimate aim and if the means employed are reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved (para. 90).
The obligation to surrender is a limitation on the right of access to a court as violation results in forfeiture of the right to appeal. Whilst the measure pursues the legitimate aim of ensuring that judicial decisions are enforced, the authorities had other means at their disposal whereby they could take the convicted person in charge, whether before or after the appeal on points of law was heard (para. 96). This disproportion between the aim and the means is not remedied by the special features of the procedure in the Court of Cassation, or by the extreme seriousness of the offences of which the applicant stood accused (paras. 97-98).
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (para. 100).
back to topFurther analysis
back to topInstruments cited
back to topRelated cases
back to topAdditional materials
- 'Key Dates in the Maurice Papon Affair', The Guardian, 18 September 2002;
- BBC, 'France Violated Papon’s Rights', BBC News, 25 July 2002;
- 'Papon Unfairly Treated on Appeal', CNN, 25 July 2002;
- A. Riding, 'European Court Says Nazi Ally Was Denied Fair Trial by France', The New York Times, 26 July 2002;
- International Justice Tribune, 'Maurice Papon Refused fresh Appeal', Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 2 May 2004.
back to topSocial media links
