26 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights There is, however, no specific test for determining whether or not the “nature” of a charge is criminal, which means that there must be regard to the particular charge in question. In Weber v Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights treated as influential the question of whether or not the charge was of general application. The European Court considered that the “disciplinary” charge faced by Weber (breaching the secrecy of a criminal investigation) was one that potentially affected the whole population and, combined with the possibility of punitive sanctions attaching to it (See also 1.1.3), meant that this was in fact a criminal charge.42 The applicant in Demicoli v Malta, a journalist who published a critical article concerning the behaviour of Members of Parliament, was summoned to appear before the House of Representatives for breach of parliamentary privilege, and found culpable. The European Court noted that the issue potentially affected the whole population since it applied whether or not the alleged breach of privilege was undertaken by a Member of Parliament. The Court held that the nature of the offence was decisive and outweighed the domestic classification (See also 1.1.1) and accordingly treated the matter as being akin to a “criminal” offence within the meaning of Article 6 of the ECHR.43 In Benham v the United Kingdom, the European Court decided for the qualification of “criminal” not only on the basis of the general application of the procedure at stake to all citizens, but also due to the fact that the proceedings in question were brought by a public authority under statutory powers of enforcement.44 In Ravnsborg v Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights found that the domestic classification of contempt of court charges under the Code of Judicial Procedure was open to interpretation and did not make it clear whether such charges were criminal. The European Court, therefore, had to have regard to the nature of the contempt of court charges, which were recognized as being a common feature of States Parties to the ECHR, deriving from the power of judicial authorities to ensure the proper and orderly functioning of proceedings. It was concluded that: “Measures ordered by courts under such rules are more akin to the exercise of disciplinary powers than to the imposition of a punishment for commission of a criminal offence.”45 In Ziliberberg v Moldova, the applicant was taken into custody and subsequently fined for having participated in an unauthorized demonstration, albeit that the matter was categorized under domestic law as administrative. The European Court held that both the nature of the offence, which was applicable to the whole of the population for a breach of the public order, as well as the punitive and deterrent nature of the penalty imposed (See also 1.1.3), meant that the proceedings were “criminal” for the purposes of Article 6.46 42 Weber v Switzerland [1990] ECHR 13, para 33; similarly, Bendenoun v France [1994] ECHR 7, para 47. 43 Demicoli v Malta [1991] 14 EHRR 47, para 33. 44 Benham v the United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 22, para 56. 45 Ravnsborg v Sweden [1994] ECHR 11, para 34. 46 Ziliberberg v Moldova [2005] ECHR 51, paras 32, 33, 34.