Description
Traditionally, criminal behavior is addressed through criminal law, where individuals are prosecuted under established legal frameworks. However, in recent years, many countries have increasingly relied on administrative and private law sanctions to address certain offenses, bypassing the criminal justice system. As a result, individuals may face enforcement actions without being prosecuted under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). One example is the closure of properties linked to illegal activities, suchas drug trafficking, initiated by local authorities. While intended as a restorative measure, property closures are often perceived as punitive by those directly affected (Bruijn & Vols 2021).
In criminal proceedings, individuals have the right to invoke protections under Article 6 ECHR, ensuring due process rights. However, those facing property closures, which significantly impact their housing and property interests, cannot rely on these same safeguards. This raises critical questions about how such sanctions should be classified and the legal implications for property rights.
This paper presents an empirical analysis of over 700 judgments from courts of first instance to investigate the classification of administrative sanctions, like home closures, as criminal charges. It explores how often individuals argue for the application of criminal law protections in such cases and assesses the extent to which courts accept this argument. The study draws on a comprehensive dataset of provisional measures, judicial review applications, and appeals related to home closures, providing insights into the intersection of property
rights, administrative law, and criminal law.
| Period | 31-May-2025 |
|---|---|
| Event title | Association of Law, Property, and Society (ALPS) Annual Meeting |
| Event type | Conference |
| Location | Sydney, AustraliaShow on map |
| Degree of Recognition | International |