Key Benefits:
(M. Franck I.)
The Constitutional Council was seized on 12 May 2014 by the Court of Cassation (Criminal Division, Judgment No. 2373 of 6 May 2014), under conditions Pursuant to Article 61 (1) of the Constitution, of a priority question relating to the constitutionality of Mr Franck I. Compliance with the rights and freedoms guaranteed byarticle 41-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Conseil Constitutionnel,
Vu la Constitution;
Vu l'ordonnance n ° 58-1067 du 7 novembre 1958 amended portant loi sur le Conseil constitutionnel;
Vu le Criminal Procedure Code ;
In view of the resolution of 4 February 2010 on the procedure before the Constitutional Council for priority issues of Constitutionality;
Seen the observations made for the applicant by CPC Monod-Colin-Stoclet, a lawyer at the Conseil d' Etat and the Court of Cassation, registered on 3 and 18 June 2014;
In view of the observations made by the Prime Minister, Registered June 3, 2014;
Seen the parts produced and Joined to the file;
Me Bertrand Colin, a lawyer at the Conseil d' Etat and the Court of Cassation, for the applicant, and Xavier Pottier, appointed by the Prime Minister, having been heard at the public hearing on 26 June 2014;
The rapporteur having Heard;
1. Considering that the terms of article 41-4 of the Code of Criminal : Where no court has been seized or where the court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction without having decided on the return of the objects, the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney General shall be competent to decide, ex officio or on request, The return of such objects where the property is not seriously disputed.
" There is no place for restitution where it is such as to create a danger to persons or property or where a particular provision provides for The destruction of objects under the control of the courts; Non-restitution taken for one of these grounds or for any other reason, even ex officio, by the public prosecutor or the attorney general may be challenged in the month of his notification by the person concerned before the court Corrections or the Chamber of Correctional Appeals, which shall act in the Board of the Board.
" If the return has not been requested or decided within six months of the classification decision or the decision by which the last Court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction, the unsurrendered objects become property of the State, Subject to the rights of third parties. The same applies when the owner or person to whom the return has been granted does not claim the object within two months of a formal notice sent to his home. Objects whose restitution is such as to create a danger to persons or property become property of the State, subject to the rights of third parties, as soon as the decision of non-restitution can no longer be challenged, or as soon as the judgment Or the judgment of non-restitution has become final " ;
2. Considering that, according to the applicant, by providing for the automatic transfer and without prior compensation to the State of the property of the property seized in the absence of a request for restoration within the period of six months from the date of the decision of classification or The decision by which the last court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction, these provisions disregard the right to property; furthermore, the uncertainty as to the starting point of the time limit for claiming restitution would undermine the right to a Effective judicial remedy; that the same would be true for the brevity of that period;
3. Considering that the priority question of constitutionality relates the first sentence of the third paragraph of the article 41-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
4. Considering, first, that ownership figures in the number of human rights enshrined in Articles 2 and 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789; that, according to Article 17: Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, except when the public need, legally recognized, requires it, of course, and under the condition of fair and prior compensation " ; that, in the absence of deprivation of the right to property within the meaning of that article, it follows from Article 2 of the 1789 Declaration that the infringement of that right must be justified on grounds of general interest and proportionate to The objective;
5. Considering thatarticle 41-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the fate of objects under the control of the courts Where no court has been seized or where the court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction without having ruled on the return of the objects; that these provisions confer jurisdiction on the public prosecutor or the attorney general to decide On the fate of such objects, either ex officio or at the request of Any interested person; that the decision to refuse restitution is subject to appeal to the Correctional Court or the Division of Correctional Appeals; Href=" /viewCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006574973&dateTexte=29990101 &categorieLink = cid"> first sentence of the third paragraph of article 41-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the State becomes the owner of Full right of the objects seized if the return has not been requested or decided within six months of the decision of the Classification or decision by which the last court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction, subject to the rights of third parties;
6. Considering, on the one hand, that by providing for the transfer to the State of the ownership of objects placed under the law and which have not been claimed before the expiry of a period after the end of the investigation or the criminal procedure, the provisions They do not result in a deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 17 of the 1789 Declaration; that the complaint of misknowledge of this Article must be rejected;
7. Considering, on the other hand, that the contested provisions are intended to permit the effective management of the seals kept in the courts and to allow the closure of the files; that they thus pursue the objectives of constitutional value Good administration of justice and good use of public funds;
8. Considering that, in itself, the attribution to the State of property placed under the law and which has not been claimed for the whole duration of the proceedings or the investigation or for an additional period of six months after the end of the proceedings, does not Not to the right of ownership a disproportionate infringement in relation to the objective pursued; that, as a result, the complaint of infringement of the right of property guaranteed by Article 2 of the Declaration of 1789 must be rejected;
9. Considering, in the second place, that under Article 16 of the 1789 Declaration: Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not guaranteed, nor the separation of powers, has no Constitution " ; that it is clear from this provision that there must be no substantial infringement of the right of interested persons to bring an effective remedy before a court;
10. Considering, on the one hand, that by providing that restitution may be requested for a period which is short, as the case may be, from " The classification decision " Or " The decision by which the last court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction ', the legislator has precisely set the starting point for that period; that the complaint alleging the inaccuracy of the point of departure of that period must be rejected;
11. Considering, on the other hand, that it follows from the first paragraph of Article 41-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the request For the purposes of restitution, only after the classification decision has been made, or after the court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction without ruling on the return of the objects; that the time limit for forming this claim is limited to six months, Regardless of the length of time between entering objects And the decision that runs this delay;
12. Considering that persons who are informed under the conditions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, of the classification decision or The decision by which the last court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction is thus able to exercise their right to claim the return of the objects placed under the control of the courts; that, however, the guarantee of the right to an appeal Effective jurisdiction requires that owners who were not Informed under these conditions are entitled to exercise their right to claim the return of the objects placed under the hand of justice when their title is known or have claimed that quality in the course of the investigation or proceedings; The contested provisions would have a disproportionate infringement of the right of the latter to form such a claim if the six-month period laid down in the contested provisions could start to run without the decision of the Classification or the decision by which the last court seised has exhausted its jurisdiction Have been brought to their knowledge; that, subject to this reservation, the impugned provisions do not disregard the requirements of Article 16 of the 1789 Declaration;
13. Considering that the contested provisions, which are contrary to any other right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, must be declared in conformity with the Constitution,
Decides:
Under the reserve in recital 12, the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 41-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code is constitutionally compliant.
This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic and notified under the conditions set out in The order of 7 November 1958 referred to above.
Issued by the Constitutional Council at its meeting on 8 July 2014, attended by Mr Jean-Louis DEBRÉ, President, Mr Jacques BARROT, Mrs Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Nicole BELLOUBET, MM. Guy CANIVET, Michel CHARASSE, Renaud DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Hubert HAENEL, and Nicole MAESTRACCI.
Rendu public July 9, 2014.
The President,
Jean-Louis Debré
