## Facts

- Marlène Belilos, a Swiss national, was reported by Lausanne police for participating in an unauthorized street demonstration in April 1981.
- On May 29, 1981, the Lausanne Municipal Police Board (a municipal administrative body) fined her 200 Swiss francs in proceedings held in her absence.
- After she challenged the fine, the Police Board held hearings in July and August 1981, heard police officers and a witness, and on September 4, 1981 confirmed her participation, reduced the fine to 120 Swiss francs, and added costs.
- She appealed within Switzerland, arguing that the Police Board was not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Cantonal and federal remedies were rejected under forms of review described as limited in scope.
- She filed an application to the European human rights institutions; the matter was later referred to the European Court of Human Rights for a decision on Article 6(1).

## Issues

1. Whether Switzerland’s “interpretative declaration” concerning Article 6(1) was, in substance, a reservation, and if so, whether it was valid under Article 64 of the Convention.
2. Whether the proceedings determining the applicant’s liability for a fine satisfied Article 6(1), including the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal or review by a tribunal with full jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court treated the Swiss “interpretative declaration” as a reservation because it purported to restrict the legal effect of Article 6(1).
- The Court held the reservation invalid under Article 64 because it was general and imprecise and did not include a brief statement of the domestic law concerned.
- The Court rejected Switzerland’s preliminary objection and applied Article 6(1) without limitation.
- On the merits, the Court found a violation of Article 6(1) because the Police Board lacked the guarantees of independence and impartiality, and the available appeals did not provide full jurisdiction to cure that defect.
- The Court awarded costs and expenses and rejected the remainder of the applicant’s just-satisfaction claims.

## Legal Principles

- The characterization of a State statement appended to ratification depends on its substantive legal effect, not its label; a statement that excludes or modifies Convention obligations is a reservation.
- Reservations under Article 64 must be limited to specific provisions, be sufficiently clear and precise, and include a brief statement identifying the domestic law allegedly in conflict; broadly framed reservations are invalid.
- If a purported reservation is invalid, the State remains fully bound by the Convention provision and cannot rely on the statement to limit jurisdiction or obligations.
- For Article 6(1), when an administrative body imposes a punitive fine, compliance requires either: (a) decision by an independent and impartial tribunal, or (b) subsequent control by a tribunal with full jurisdiction over law and fact sufficient to remedy deficiencies.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Switzerland’s attempt to limit Article 6(1) through a broadly framed “interpretative declaration,” held Switzerland fully bound by Article 6(1), and found that imposing a fine through a municipal police board without independent adjudication or full judicial review violated the fair-trial guarantee.


Belilos v. Switz., 10 Eur. H.R. Rep. 466 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1988)