European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 174

Paulet v. the United Kingdom - 6219/08

Judgment 13.5.2014 [Section IV] See: [2014] ECHR 477

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Narrow scope of review for order confiscating wages from employment obtained using a false passport: violation

Facts – The applicant, an Ivoirian national living illegally in the United Kingdom, obtained employment using a false French passport. From 2003 to 2007 he accumulated over GBP 20,000 in savings. When he applied for a driving licence with the same passport, the falsity of the document was discovered and criminal proceedings were brought against him. At his trial the applicant pleaded guilty. The trial judge sentenced him to prison, recommended him for deportation, and imposed a confiscation order in respect of all of his savings under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The applicant appealed against the confiscation order on the ground that it was an abuse of process and oppressive, noting that Parliament had intended the Proceeds of Crime Act to be compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.

Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(a)  Admissibility – The Government contended that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the applicant’s complaints in the domestic proceedings had been framed by reference to domestic law (“oppression” and “abuse of process”), not by reference to the Convention (“disproportionate”). However, the Court held that the applicant, in arguing that the confiscation order was an abuse of process and oppressive because it was disproportionate in light of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, had taken sufficient steps towards advancing his Convention complaint at the domestic level. Moreover, at the time the applicant brought his complaint before the domestic courts, it had been appropriate for him to argue his case in terms of “oppression” and “abuse of process” because it was only in a later case (R v. Waya [2012] UKSC 51) that the Supreme Court had indicated that it would be preferable to analyse confiscation cases in terms of proportionality under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).

(b)  Merits – The applicant complained that the confiscation order was a disproportionate interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government argued that the order was proportionate because it only confiscated assets with a value equivalent to the applicant’s benefit from his criminal conduct. However, rather than ruling on whether the order met the proportionality requirement, the Court ruled on procedural grounds. The Court observed that the scope of review carried out by the Court of Appeal was too narrow, as it had only asked whether the order was in the public interest, and not whether it maintained a fair balance between property rights and the public interest. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal had only asserted that the abuse of process jurisdiction had to be exercised “sparingly”. Given that fair balance was not within the Court of Appeal’s scope of review, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).

Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes