Violation of right to fair trial by use of “caution” measure (ECtHR)

In Chamber's judgment dated 19.3.2026 in the case of B.G. v. France (application no. 70945/17) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 


The case primarily concerned the failure to afford the guarantees of the right to a fair trial during “caution” (rappel à la loi) proceedings initiated by the public prosecutor against the applicant for false accusation of rape. 

The applicant, aged 16 at the time, had reported a 17-year-old man, L.A., to the police for rape. Following the discontinuance of the investigation into that complaint, L.A.’s mother reported the applicant to the police for making a false accusation. 

Although the applicant stood by the details of her initial complaint, she was issued with a caution and was consequently included in the criminal history database for a five-year period. 

The Court emphasised the importance and the difficulty of ascertaining the existence of consent with consideration being given to all surrounding circumstances. In that regard, it noted that the applicant had been issued with an alternative to prosecution that designated her as the perpetrator of a false accusation following the discontinuance of the investigation into her rape complaint. She had not, however, admitted to the offence, nor had she at any time waived the various guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 

The Court concluded that the case had involved two successive, indissociable sets of proceedings, namely those resulting in the decision to discontinue the investigation into the rape complaint and then those culminating in the issuance of a caution for false accusation. In those circumstances, there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which applied in its criminal aspect to the whole sequence of proceedings.

The Court held that France was to pay the applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses.

The judgement is available here 

(source:echr.coe.int/photo freepik.com)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A holding by purely financial investors in a law firm may be prohibited (CJEU)

Swiss franc loans and borrowers’ rights in the light of 4 important judgments of the European Court of Justice

Alleged bullying of whistle-blowing prison guard - Violation of right to respect for private life (ECtHR)

MiCAR’s enforcement: An innovative crypto-friendly regulatory landscape

The principle of the most favourable rule as a basic principle of Greek Labour Law

Greek Administrative Court rules state liable for Covid-19 vaccine side effects due to "excessive sacrifice"

The Accused's Right to the Last Word in Cyprus Criminal Proceedings: A Critical Analysis