In the Court's view, the fact that an act which can lead to a disciplinary sanction under administrative law also constitutes a criminal offence is not sufficient reason to consider that a person presented as responsible before the local authority and the administrative court is "charged with a crime" (see, mutatis mutandis, Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2003-II, and Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II, concerning the duality of criminal and civil liability), in so far as it is neither the purpose nor the effect of the provisions of Article 6 § 2 to prevent the authorities vested with disciplinary power from sanctioning misconduct in a civil servant where such misconduct has been duly established (see, on this point, the identical position of the Commission in Dubos v. France, no. 31104/96, decision of 14 January 1998).

The Court notes that the administration did not claim that the applicant had committed any unlawful act and there was nothing in its decision indicating any assessment or prejudgment of the applicant's guilt related to the criminal charges brought against him (see Dubos v. France (dec.), no. 31104/96, 14 January 1998).