information note no. 142 (provisional version)

7/29/2019 INFORMATION NOTE No. 142 (Provisional Version)

1/35

June/Juin 2011No./No 142

Information Note on the Courts case-law

Note dinformation sur la jurisprudence de la Cour

Provisional version/Version provisoire

CONSEIL

DE L'EUROPE

COUNCIL

OF EUROPE


2/35

Te Inormation Note, compiled by the Courts Case-Law Inormation and Publications Division, contains summaries o cases

examined during the month in question which the Registry considers as being o particular interest. Te summaries are not binding

on the Court. In the provisional version the summaries are normally drated in the language o the case concerned, whereas the nal

single-language version appears in English and French respectively. Te Inormation Note may be downloaded at . A hard-copy subscription is available or 30 euros (EUR) or 45 United States dollars (USD) per year,

including an index, by contacting the publications service via the on-line orm at .

Te HUDOC database is available ree-o-charge through the Courts Internet site () or in

a pay-or DVD version (). It provides access to the ull case-law and materials on the European

Convention on Human Rights, namely the decisions, judgments and advisory opinions o the Court, the reports o the European

Commission o Human Rights and the resolutions o the Committee o Ministers.

Cette Note dinormation, tablie par la Division des publications et de linormation sur la jurisprudence, contient les rsums

daaires dont le gree de la Cour a indiqu quelles prsentaient un intrt particulier. Les rsums ne lient pas la Cour. Dans la

version provisoire, les rsums sont en principe rdigs dans la langue de laaire en cause ; la version unilingue de la note parat

ultrieurement en ranais et en anglais et peut tre tlcharge ladresse suivante : .

Un abonnement annuel la version papier comprenant un index est disponible pour 30 euros (EUR) ou 45 dollars amricains (USD)en contactant le service publications via le ormulaire : .

La base de donnes HUDOC disponible gratuitement sur le site internet de la Cour () ou en

version DVD payante () vous permettra daccder la jurisprudence complte de la Convention

europenne des droits de lhomme, qui se compose des textes suivants : dcisions, arrts et avis consultatis de la Cour, rapports de

la Commission europenne des droits de lhomme et rsolutions du Comit des Ministres.

European Court o Human Rights Cour europenne des droits de lhomme

(Council o Europe) (Conseil de lEurope)67075 Strasbourg Cedex 67075 Strasbourg CedexFrance Franceel: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 20 18 l. : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 20 18Fax: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 30 Fax : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 30

www.echr.coe.int www.echr.coe.int

Council o Europe/Conseil de lEurope, 2011
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/hudochttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/frhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/frhttp://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/FR/hudochttp://www.echr.coe.int/hudoccd/frhttp://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_FRhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_FRhttp://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/hudoccd/frhttp://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/FR/hudochttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/frhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/frhttp://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/hudochttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/enhttp://www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/en


3/35

3

Table o conTenTs / Table des maTires

arTicle 2

l/V

* Non-atal shooting o journalist by police unit on special operation who had not been inormedthat his presence had been authorised by local chie o police: violation; no violation*Journaliste bless par balles par une unit de police en opration spciale non inorme de sa prsenceautorise par le che de la police locale : violation ; non-violation

Trvalec Belgium/Belgique - 30812/07........................................................................................ 9

arTicle 3

iu gg ttt/Ttt u t gt

* Protracted solitary connement in inadequate prison conditions: violation

* Isolement cellulaire prolong dans des conditions de dtention inadaptes : violationCsllg Hungary/Hongrie - 30042/08....................................................................................... 10

expu

* Orders or deportation to Somalia: deportation would constitute violation*Arrts dexpulsion vers la Somalie : lexpulsion emporterait violation

Su and/et Elmi United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni - 8319/07 and/et 11449/07............................. 11

arTicle 5

at 5 1

dpvt ty/Pvt tlwu t tt/att u tt gu

* Indenite preventive detention ordered by sentencing court: no violation* Dtention prventive dure indtermine ordonne par la juridiction de jugement : non-violation

Schmitz Germany/Allemagne - 30493/04Mork Germany/Allemagne - 31047/04 and/et 43386/08........................................................... 13

dpvt ty/Pvt t

* Forty-ve minute arrest o human rights activist with a view to preventing him committingunspecied administrative and criminal oences: violation*Arrestation dun militant des droits de lhomme pendant quarante-cinq minutes dans le but delempcher de commettre des inractions administratives et pnales non prcises : violation

Shimovolos Russia/Russie - 30194/09......................................................................................... 13

at 5 1 ()

expu

* Detention o applicant in respect o whom interim measure by Court preventing his deportationwas in orce: inadmissible

* Maintien en centre erm du requrant temporairement non expulsable en raison dune mesureprovisoire de la Cour : irrecevable

S.P. Belgium/Belgique (dec./dc.) - 12572/08............................................................................. 14


4/35

European Court o Human Rights / Inormation Note no. 142 June 2011

4

extt

* Detention pending extradition to the United States o a ormer Russian minister who, while visitingSwitzerland or private reasons, was summoned as a witness in a criminal case: no violation* Dtention, en vue de son extradition vers les Etats-Unis, dun ancien ministre russe, venu en Suisse titre priv et convoqu alors comme tmoin dans une aaire pnale : non-violation

Adamov Switzerland/Suisse - 3052/06....................................................................................... 15

at 5 4

rvw wu tt/ct gt ttsp vw/ct

* Inordinate delay by Supreme Court and reusal to entertain appeal against detention once periodcovered by detention order had expired: violations* Dure excessive dune procdure devant la Cour suprme et reus dexaminer un recours dirigcontre un maintien en dtention aprs expiration de la dure de dtention autorise : violations

S.T.S. Netherlands/Pays-Bas - 277/05........................................................................................ 16

arTicle 6

at 6 1 (v)

appty/appta t ut/a u tu

* Immunity rom jurisdiction preventing non-national employee o oreign embassy to challengedismissal:Article 6 applicable; violation* Immunit de juridiction rendant impossible la contestation du licenciement dun employ non-ressortissant dune ambassade trangre : article 6 applicable ; violation

Sabeh El Leil France [GC] - 34869/05...................................................................................... 17* Denial o the right to appeal against a preliminary judgment: Article 6 applicable; violation* Dni dappel contre un jugement interlocutoire : article 6 applicable ; violation

Mercieca and Others/et autres Malta/Malte - 21974/07............................................................ 18

a t ut/a u tu

* Reusal o Russian courts to examine a claim against Russian authorities concerning the inter-pretation o Russian law: violation* Reus des juridictions russes dexaminer un recours contre les autorits russes portant sur unequestion dinterprtation du droit interne : violation

Zylkov Russia/Russie - 5613/04................................................................................................. 19

ipt pt tu/Tu pt t pt

*Alleged lack o impartiality where Constitutional Court Presidents judicial assistant had acted orone o the parties in prior civil proceedings in same case: no violation*Allgation de manque dimpartialit au moti que lassistante judiciaire du prsident de la Courconstitutionnelle avait reprsent lune des parties dans le cadre de la procdure civile antrieuretenue en laaire : non-violation

Bellizzi Malta/Malte - 46575/09.............................................................................................. 20

at 6 1 (/p)

g/P qut

* Inability to deend charge o malicious prosecution owing to presumption that accusation againsta deendant acquitted or lack o evidence was alse: violation


5/35

Cour europenne des droits de lhomme / Note dinormation no 142 Juin 2011

5

* Impossibilit de se disculper dune accusation de dnonciation calomnieuse, la prsomption de laausset du ait reposant sur une dcision de justice antrieure onde sur le bnce du doute :violation

Klouvi France - 30754/03 ........................................................................................................ 21

Tu t y w/Tu t p *Applicants case decided by Special Court established or trying corruption and organised crime:no violation*Attribution de laaire du requrant une juridiction extraordinaire comptente en matire decorruption et de criminalit organise : non-violation

Fruni Slovakia/Slovaquie - 8014/07.......................................................................................... 22

at 6 2

Pupt /Ppt

* Inability to deend charge o malicious prosecution owing to presumption that accusation againsta deendant acquitted or lack o evidence was alse: violation* Impossibilit de se disculper dune accusation de dnonciation calomnieuse, la prsomption deausset du ait reposant sur une dcision de justice antrieure onde sur le bnce du doute :violation

Klouvi France - 30754/03 ........................................................................................................ 23

arTicle 7

at 7 1

Nullum crimen sine lege* Conviction or murder o a ormer prosecutor, who had been involved in the elimination oopponents through a political trial: inadmissible* Condamnation pour meurtre dune ancienne procureure pour avoir particip la liquidationdopposants au moyen dun procs politique : irrecevable

Polednov Czech Republic/Rpublique tchque (dec./dc.) - 2615/10........................................... 23

arTicle 8

Pvt /V pv

* Police listing and surveillance o applicant on account o his membership in a human rightsorganisation: violation* Fichage et surveillance par la police dun requrant en raison de son appartenance une organisationde dense des droits de lhomme : violation

Shimovolos Russia/Russie - 30194/09......................................................................................... 24

Pvt y /V pv t expu

* Reusal to renew residence permit o minor who had been sent abroad by her parents against herwill: violation

* Reus de renouvellement du permis de sjour dune mineure envoye ltranger par ses parentscontre son gr : violation

Osman Denmark/Danemark - 38058/09.................................................................................. 24


6/35


6

Pvt y /V pv t

* Inability o ather divested o his legal capacity to acknowledge paternity o his child: violation* Impossibilit, pour un pre dclar juridiquement incapable, de aire reconnatre sa paternit :violation

Krukovi Croatia/Croatie - 46185/08...................................................................................... 25

* Inability o healthy couple with high risk o transmitting hereditary illness to obtain genetic screeningo embryo prior to implantation: communicated

* Impossibilit pour un couple porteur sain dune maladie gntique hautement transmissibledeectuer un diagnostic gntique primplantatoire : aaire communique

Costa and/et Pavan Italy/Italie - 54270/10................................................................................ 26

y /V expuPtv gt/ogt ptv

* Deportation and exclusion orders that would eectively result in a mother guilty o immigration-

law breaches being separated rom her young children or two years: deportation would constituteviolation

* Les arrts dexpulsion et dinterdiction du territoire pris contre elle auraient pour eet de sparerde son jeune enant pendant deux ans une mre coupable dinractions la lgislation sur limmigration :lexpulsion emporterait violation

Nunez Norway/Norvge - 55597/09......................................................................................... 26

arTicle 9

g/lt g

* Unoreseeable taxation o donations to religious association: violation* axation imprvisible des orandes aite une association religieuse : violation

Association Les Tmoins de Jhovah France - 8916/05................................................................. 27

arTicle 10

xp/lt xp

* Ban on displaying advertising poster in public owing to immoral conduct o publishers and reerencein poster to banned Internet site: case reerred to the Grand Chamber

*Ache interdite sur le domaine public pour lactivit immorale de ses auteurs et le renvoi un siteinternet prohib par la loi : aaire renvoye devant la Grande Chambre

Mouvement ralien suisse Switzerland/Suisse - 16354/06............................................................ 28

* Damages award against newspaper which had made all reasonable attempts to veriy accuracy oreport on court proceedings: violation

* Condamnation des dommages et intrts prononce contre un journal ayant ait tout ce qui taiten son pouvoir pour vrier lexactitude dun compte rendu daudience : violation

Aquilina and Others/et autres Malta/Malte - 28040/08............................................................. 29

* Criminal conviction or breaching planning regulations applicable to external murals: inadmissible

* Condamnation pnale pour non-respect des rgles durbanisme applicables aux crations artistiquesmurales externes : irrecevable

Ehrmann and/et SCI VHI France (dec./dc.) - 2777/10............................................................. 30


7/35


7

arTicle 14

dt (at 8)

* Inability o healthy couple with high risk o transmitting hereditary illness to obtain genetic screening

o embryo prior to implantation: communicated

* Impossibilit pour un couple porteur sain dune maladie gntique hautement transmissibledeectuer un diagnostic gntique primplantatoire : aaire communique

Costa and/et Pavan Italy/Italie - 54270/10................................................................................ 31

dt (at 2 Pt n. 1/u Pt 1)

* Requirement on aliens without permanent residence to pay secondary-school ees: violation

* Obligation aite aux trangers non titulaires dun titre de sjour permanent de payer des rais de

scolarit pour lducation secondaire : violation

Ponomaryov Bulgaria/Bulgarie - 5335/05.................................................................................. 31

arTicle 34

Vt/Vt

* General complaint on religious grounds about constitutional provision prohibiting construction

o minarets: absence o victim status

* Contestation dune disposition constitutionnelle interdisant la construction de minarets pour heurt

des convictions religieuses de aon gnrale : absence du statut de victime

Ouardiri Switzerland/Suisse - 65840/09

Ligue des musulmans de Suisse and Others/et autres Switzerland/Suisse - 66274/09..................... 32

arTicle 35

at 35 3 ()

n gt vtg/auu pju ptt* Domestic proceedings aimed at the recovery o goods worth EUR 350 allegedly stolen rom the

applicants apartment:preliminary objection dismissed

* Procdure interne tendant au recouvrement dobjets dune valeur de 350 EUR prtendument vols

dans lappartement du requrant : exception prliminaire rejete

Giuran Romania/Roumanie - 24360/04.................................................................................... 33

arTicle 1 o ProTocol n. 1 / arTicle 1 dU ProTocole n 1

Pu jyt p/rpt ct t u ppty/rgt ug

* Obligation o landowner opposed to hunting on ethical grounds to tolerate hunting on his land

and to join a hunting association: case reerred to the Grand Chamber

* Obligation pour un propritaire terrien oppos la chasse pour des raisons thiques de tolrer la

chasse sur ses terres et dadhrer une association de chasse : aaire renvoye devant la Grande Chambre

Herrmann Germany/Allemagne - 9300/07................................................................................ 33


8/35


8

arTicle 3 o ProTocol n. 1 / arTicle 3 dU ProTocole n 1

Vt

* Ban on prisoner voting imposed automatically as a result o sentence: case reerred to the GrandChamber* Interdiction aite un dtenu de voter dcoulant automatiquement de la peine prononce : aaire

renvoye devant la Grande ChambreScoppola Italy/Italie (no./no 3) - 126/05..................................................................................... 34

reerral To The Grand chamber /renVoi deVanT la Grande chambre ............................................................................... 34

recenT coUrT PUblicaTions / PUblicaTions rcenTes de la coUr............... 35

1. Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria / Guide pratique sur la recevabilit

2. Handbook on European Non-Discrimination Law / Manuel de droit europen en matire de non-discrimination


9/35

Article 2


9

arTicle 2

l/V

n-t tg jut y p ut

p pt w t tt p ut y p: violation; no violation

Jut p p u ut p pt p p ut p p :violation ; non-violation

Trvalec Belgium/Belgique- 30812/07Judgment/Arrt 14.6.2011 [Section II]

En ait Le requrant, reporter, tait engag par

une socit de production qui avait obtenu de lapolice lautorisation pour lui et un collgue jour-naliste de lmer les oprations dune unit spciale,le peloton anti-banditisme ( PAB ). Le 12 janvier2003 vers 1 heure du matin, la suite de lappeldun riverain, loprateur radio de la police dirigeades policiers, dont les agents M.S. et Y.M., dansun quartier dentrepts. Lopration de terrainvisait linterpellation de deux individus au com-portement inquitant et qui semblaient tre arms.

Juste aprs linterception et limmobilisation dessuspects par dautres policiers, le requrant a surgi

dans le dos des agents M.S. et Y.M., quelquesmtres deux. Cest dans le eu de laction et dansun rfexe de dense, prenant dans lobscurit lacamra du reporter pour une arme et se sentantmenacs, que les deux policiers ont alors tir versle requrant et lont grivement bless aux jambes.

Les personnes responsables de lopration urentaussitt contactes et inormes de laccident, etun avis parquet ut lanc une dizaine de minutesaprs celui-ci. La juge dinstruction prit immdia-tement diverses mesures en vue dtablir les aits et

de conserver les lments de preuve.En droit Article 2

a) Volet matriel M.S. et Y.M. croyaient de bonneoi que leur vie tait menace et ils ont utilis leurarme dans un but de lgitime dense, pensant agirainsi dans les limites tablies par la loi. Etant donnle sujet de son reportage, il apparaissait vident quele requrant tait susceptible de se trouver dans dessituations dangereuses pour son intgrit physiqueou sa vie. Dans ce contexte, il tait dpendant dela police pour sa scurit, laquelle avait accept cette

responsabilit en autorisant sa prsence. Sans texterglementaire, ce type de situation se dcidait aucas par cas. Les autorits de police ont pris soin de

aire contresigner par le requrant lautorisation delmer dlivre par le che de la police, laquelle taitremise la condition de se conormer aux directivesde scurit donnes par les inspecteurs. En outredes gilets pare-balles ont t ournis au requrantet son collgue, qui ont bnci dune runionde prparation et de directives appropries. Cepen-dant, la retranscription des communications eec-tues par le central radio cette nuit-l montreque la prsence du requrant et de son conrre ausein dune quipe du PAB na pas ait lobjet duneinormation spcique lattention des quipesde terrain. Les auteurs des coups de eu et leurscoquipiers, qui appartenaient au service 101 et la brigade canine, ont conirm que, silsnignoraient pas quune quipe de tlvision taiten train de raliser un reportage, ils navaient tinorms ni des modalits du tournage ni de laprsence du requrant cette nuit-l sur le terrain.Lautorisation de lmer dlivre par le che de lapolice a t ache dans le local du che de postedu PAB et dans le central radio de lhtel depolice avec la mention pour ino tournage du9 au 13 janvier , mais ce document ne prcisaitpas les heures de prsence des deux journalistes surle terrain. De plus, et surtout, les ches de poste etinspecteurs qui ociaient au service 101 la veilleou au moment des aits, ainsi que les responsablesde la brigade canine, navaient reu aucune note

ou euille de service mentionnant cette inormationou nen avaient t autrement aviss.

La question de savoir si M.S. et Y.M. taient aucourant que lintervention policire tait suivie parun journaliste est un lment dterminant au re-gard de larticle 2, ds lors que lon ne peut exclurequils auraient agi diremment et que lesvnements tragiques qui se sont produits auraientpu tre vits sils avaient eu connaissance de lasituation. Or il ressort de ce qui prcde que lacause de leur ignorance rsulte de daillancesdu circuit dinormation imputables aux autorits.

Mme si le requrant, ne pouvant ignorer les dan-gers de la situation, na vraisemblablement pasagi avec toute la prudence requise, il navait reuaucune directive de scurit le jour de laccident,ni aucune consigne de rester en retrait une oisarriv sur les lieux.

Au vu des carences dans lencadrement du requ-rant, imputables aux autorits, et des daillancesdu circuit dinormation, lon ne saurait soutenirque le comportement imprudent du requrant estla cause dterminante de laccident dont il a t

victime. Ainsi les autorits, qui taient responsablesde la scurit du reporter dans un contexte o savie tait potentiellement en danger, nont pas


10/35


10 Article 2 Article 3

dploy toute la vigilance que lon pouvait raison-nablement attendre delles. Ce daut de vigilanceest la cause essentielle du recours, par erreur, laorce potentiellement meurtrire qui a expos lin-tress un srieux risque pour sa vie et a caus lesgraves blessures dont il a t victime. De ce ait, le

recours la orce ntait pas absolument ncessairepour assurer la dense de toute personne contrela violence illgale au sens de larticle 2 2 a).

Conclusion : violation (unanimit).

b) Volet procdural Les autorits ont ragi auxvnements avec promptitude et srieux. De nom-breuses mesures destines tablir les aits etresponsabilits urent prises, et les investigations sedroulrent sous la direction dune juge dinstruc-tion, dont lindpendance et limpartialit ne sontpas en cause. Il ressort du dossier que le requrant

a t associ lenqute. En outre, la juge dinstruc-tion avait accueilli avorablement sa demandetendant ce quune deuxime reconstitution soitorganise, et cest linitiative de lintress quelleneut inalement pas lieu. Ainsi lenqute sestdroule dans des conditions aptes permettre dedterminer si le recours la orce tait justi ounon et identier les responsables. Elle ut certesponctue dun certain nombre de temps morts,et il et sans doute t souhaitable quelle t con-duite avec une plus grande clrit. Cela ne suttouteois pas, dans les circonstances de lespce etau vu des mesures prises, mettre en cause soneectivit.

Conclusion : non-violation (unanimit).

Article 41 : question rserve.

arTicle 3

iu gg ttt/Tttu t gt

Ptt ty t qutp t: violation

it u pg -t tt pt : violation

Csllg Hungary/Hongrie- 30042/08Judgment/Arrt 7.6.2011 [Section II]

Facts In 2006 the applicant was convicted oconspiracy to commit murder and sentenced tove years imprisonment. He was detained in a

special security cell as the authorities suspected thathe was planning an escape. As a result, he hadalmost no human contact or a period o nearly

two years and was never inormed why he wasbeing kept separately rom the other inmates. Teapplicant submitted that there was only articiallight in his cell, the ventilation was insucient, thetoilet had neither a seat nor a cover and he had hadto endure body cavity searches on a daily basis. In

addition, he was always handcued when outsidehis cell, was not permitted to keep items such as a

watch, pen, comb, plastic cutlery, teabags orstationery and was only allowed a limited numbero books or newspapers. Te applicant complainedabout the conditions o his detention to the PublicProsecutors Oce, which replied that they werenot entitled to intervene and that all the measurestaken by the prison authorities had had a properlegal basis. Te applicant was released in February2009 ater serving his sentence.

Law Article 3: Even though the applicantsisolation was partial and relative, given the likelynegative eects on an inmates personality, it couldonly be considered appropriate i applied excep-tionally and temporarily. Furthermore, several othe restrictive measures applied to the applicant such as or example the prohibition on possessinga watch or teabags or the restriction on the numbero books kept in the cell could not have reason-ably been related to the purported objective o theisolation, namely to rustrate any attempt to escape.Moreover, there were no security reasons or con-

stantly handcung the applicant every time he wasoutside his cell: nothing indicated that he wouldincite disorder in the prison and there was noevidence that the measure was applied on the basisthat he represented a security risk to other prisoners,the prison sta or himsel. Finally, the authoritieshad ailed to give any substantive reasons orimposing or extending the solitary connement inthe applicants case. Te impugned restriction mustthereore have been perceived as arbitrary andinstilled in the applicant eelings o subordination,powerlessness and humiliation. Te authorities didnot apply any measures to counter the negativeeects o protracted solitary connement on hisphysical and mental condition. Open-air stays orsport opportunities o limited availability couldnot in the circumstances be considered capable oremedying those negative eects, especially sinceall the applicants movements entailed him beinghandcued in an otherwise secure environment.In sum, the cumulative eects o the stringentcustodial regime to which the applicant was sub-

jected or an extended period o time and thematerial conditions in which he was detained musthave caused him suering which exceeded theunavoidable level inherent in detention.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).


11/35

Article 3


11

Article 13: Without proper inormation about thereasons or applying a strict security regime to theapplicant, or any other prisoner or that matter,the prosecution authorities could not review orchallenge the decisions o the prison authorities toimpose it. Tus, although independent, the pros-

ecutor lacked the power to overturn prison author-ity decisions relating to special security measuresor prisoners.


Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect o non-pecuniarydamage.

expu

o ptt t s: deportation

would constitute violationat xpu v s : lexpulsionemporterait violation

Su and/et Elmi United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni- 8319/07 and/et 11449/07

Judgment/Arrt 28.6.2011 [Section IV]

Facts Both applicants were Somali nationals.Mr Su (the rst applicant) arrived in the UnitedKingdom in 2003 and claimed asylum on theground that he was a member o a minority clan

which was persecuted by militia who had killed hisather and sister and seriously injured him. Hisapplication was reused and his appeal dismissedon the grounds that his account was not credible.In 2008 he was diagnosed as suering rom posttraumatic stress disorder. Mr Elmi (the secondapplicant) is a member o the majority Isaaq clan.He arrived in the United Kingdom in 1988 and

was granted leave to remain as a reugee. Followingconvictions or a number o serious criminal o-ences both applicants were issued with deportationorders. Tey appealed unsuccessully.

Somalia is comprised o three autonomous areas:the sel-declared Republic o Somaliland in thenorth west, the state o Puntland in the north east,and the remaining southern and central regions.Somali society has traditionally been characterisedby membership o clan amilies. Te country hasbeen without a unctioning central governmentsince 1991 and is beset by lawlessness, civil confictand clan warare. Although the ransitional FederalGovernment was established in October 2004 andis recognised by the United Nations, it currently

controls only a small section o Mogadishu and isdependent on Arican Union troops or its survival.

A group known as al-Shabaab, which began as part

o the armed wing o the Union o Islamic Courts,has emerged as the most powerul and eectivearmed action on the ground, especially in southernSomalia and has steadily been moving orces uptowards Mogadishu.

In their applications to the European Court, theapplicants complained that they would be at risko ill-treatment i they were deported to Somalia.

Law Article 3: Te sole question in an expulsioncase was whether, in all the circumstances o thecase, substantial grounds had been shown orbelieving that the applicant would, i returned, acea real risk o treatment contrary to Article 3.1 I theexistence o such a risk was established, the appli-cants removal would necessarily breach Article 3,regardless o whether the risk emanated rom a

general situation o violence, a personal charac-teristic o the applicant, or a combination o thetwo. However, not every situation o general vio-lence would give rise to such a risk. On the contrary,a general situation o violence would only be osucient intensity to create such a risk in the mostextreme cases. Te ollowing criteria2 were relevant(but not exhaustive) or the purposes o identiyinga conficts level o intensity: whether the partiesto the confict were either employing methods andtactics o warare which increased the risk o civil-ian casualties or directly targeting civilians; whether

the use o such methods and/or tactics was wide-spread among the parties to the confict; whetherthe ighting was localised or widespread; andnally, the number o civilians killed, injured anddisplaced as a result o the ghting.

urning to the situation in Somalia, Mogadishu,the proposed point o return, was subjected toindiscriminate bombardments and military oen-sives, and unpredictable and widespread violence.It had substantial numbers o civilian casualtiesand displaced persons. While a well-connected

individual might be able to obtain protection there,only connections at the highest level would be ableto assure such protection and anyone who had notbeen in Somalia or some time was unlikely to havesuch connections. In conclusion, the violence waso such a level o intensity that anyone in the city,except possibly those who were exceptionally well-connected to powerul actors, would be at realrisk o proscribed treatment.

1. See NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, 17 July 2008,

Inormation Note no. 110.

2. Criteria identied by the United Kingdom Asylum andImmigration ribunal in the case oAM and AM (armed

confict: risk categories) Somalia CG[2008] UKAI 00091.


12/35


12 Article 3 Article 5 1

As to the possibility o relocating to a saer region,Article 3 did not preclude the Contracting Statesrom placing reliance on the internal fight alter-native provided that the returnee could travel to,gain admittance to and settle in the area in question

without being exposed to a real risk o ill-treat-ment. Te Court was prepared to accept that itmight be possible or returnees to travel romMogadishu International Airport to another parto southern and central Somalia. However, retur-nees with no recent experience o living in Somalia

would be at real risk o ill-treatment i their homearea was in or i they was required to travelthrough an area controlled by al-Shabaab, as they

would not be amiliar with the strict Islamic codesimposed there and could thereore be subjected topunishments such as stoning, amputation, fogging

and corporal punishment.It was reasonably likely that returnees who eitherhad no close amily connections or could not saelytravel to an area where they had such connections

would have to seek reuge in an Internally DisplacedPersons (IDP) or reugee camp. Te Court there-ore had to consider the conditions in these camps,

which had been described as dire. In that connec-tion, it indicated that where a crisis was predomi-nantly due to the direct and indirect actions oparties to a confict as opposed to poverty or tothe States lack o resources to deal with a naturallyoccurring phenomenon, such as a drought thepreerred approach or assessing whether direhumanitarian conditions had reached the Article 3threshold was that adopted inM.S.S. v. Belgiumand Greece1,which required the Court to haveregard to an applicants ability to cater or his mostbasic needs, such as ood, hygiene and shelter, hisvulnerability to ill-treatment and the prospect ohis situation improving within a reasonable timerame. Conditions in the main centres the

Agooye Corridor in Somalia and the Dadaab

camps in Kenya were suciently dire to amountto treatment reaching the Article 3 threshold. IDPsin the Agooye Corridor had very limited access toood and water, and shelter appeared to be an emer-ging problem as landlords sought to exploit theirpredicament or prot. Although humanitarianassistance was available in the Dadaab camps, dueto extreme overcrowding, access to shelter, waterand sanitation acilities was extremely limited. Teinhabitants o both camps were vulnerable to vio-lent crime, exploitation, abuse and orcible recruit-ment and had very little prospect o their situation

1. M.S.S. v. Belg ium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09,

21 January 2011, Inormation Note no. 137.

improving within a reasonable time rame.Moreover, the reugees living in or, indeed, tryingto get to the Dadaab camps were also at real riskoreoulementby the Kenyan authorities.

As regards the applicants personal circumstances,

the irst applicant would be at real risk o ill-treatment i he were to remain in Mogadishu. Sincehis only close amily connections were in a townunder the control o al-Shabaab and as he hadarrived in the United Kingdom in 2003, when he

was only sixteen years old, there was also a real risko ill-treatment by al-Shabaab i he attempted torelocate there. Consequently, it was likely that he

would nd himsel in an IDP or reugee campwhere conditions were suciently dire to reach theArticle 3 threshold and the rst applicant wouldbe particularly vulnerable on account o his psy-

chiatric illness.Te second applicant would be at real risk o ill-treatment i he were to remain in Mogadishu.

Although it was accepted that he was a member othe majority Isaaq clan, the Court did not considerthis to be evidence o connections powerul enoughto protect him. Tere was no evidence that he hadany close amily connections in southern and cen-tral Somalia and, in any case, he had arrived in theUnited Kingdom in 1988, when he was nineteenyears old, and had had no experience o livingunder al-Shabaabs repressive regime. He wouldthereore be at real risk i he were to seek reuge inan area under al-Shabaabs control. Likewise, i he

were to seek reuge in the IDP or reugee camps.Lastly, the act that he had been issued with remo-val directions to Mogadishu rather than to Hargeisaappeared to contradict the Governments assertionthat he would be admitted to Somaliland.

Conclusion: deportation would constitute a viola-tion (unanimously).

Article 41: No claim made in respect o damage.

arTicle 5

at 5 1

dpvt ty/Pvt tlwu t tt/attu tt gu

it pvtv tt ytg ut: no violation

dtt pvtv u t p jut jugt : non-violation


13/35


13Article 5 1

Schmitz Germany/Allemagne- 30493/04Mork Germany/Allemagne- 31047/04

and/et 43386/08Judgments/Arrts 9.6.2011 [Section V]

Facts Both applicants were convicted o serious

oences or which they received prison sentences.In view o their records and the risk o their reo-ending, the sentencing courts also made ordersor them to be held in indenite preventive deten-tion once they had served their sentences, in accor-dance with Article 66 1 o the German CriminalCode as worded prior to amendments that enteredinto orce on 27 December 2003. In their appli-cation to the European Court, the applicants com-plained that their preventive detention had inrin-ged their right to liberty.

Law Article 5 1: Te Court saw no reason todepart rom its indings in the case oM. v.Germany1 that preventive detention ordered by thesentencing court was covered by sub-paragraph (a)o Article 5 1 i it was not extended beyond thestatutory ten-year maximum period permitted atthe time o the oence and conviction. Neitherapplicant had been in preventive detention beyondthat maximum period. Tere was a sucient cau-sal connection between the applicants convictionand their deprivation o liberty, with both theorders or their preventive detention and the deci-

sions not to release them being based on the samegrounds, namely to prevent urther serious re-oending.

Further, their preventive detention was lawul inthat it was based on a oreseeable application othe Criminal Code. In that connection, the Courttook note o the Federal Constitutional Courtsleading judgment o 4 May 2011 in which it heldthat all provisions o the Criminal Code on theretrospective extension o preventive detention andon the retrospective ordering o such detention

were incompatible with the Basic Law. Te Courtwelcomed the Constitutional Courts approach ointerpreting the provisions o the Basic Law in thelight not only o the Constitution, but also o theConvention and the Courts case-law, so demons-trating a continuing commitment to the protectiono undamental rights not only at national but alsoat European level.

Te Court urther noted the Constitutional Courtsnding in that judgment that the current provi-sions on the imposition and duration o preventivedetention were incompatible with the undamen-

1. M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, 17 December 2009,

Inormation Note no. 125.

tal right to liberty to the extent that they did notsatisy the constitutional requirement o esta-blishing a dierence between preventive detentionand a prison sentence. However, the ConstitutionalCourts judgment had not declared void the rele-vant provisions with retrospective eect, and theapplicants preventive detention had in any eventbeen ordered and executed on the basis o a pre-vious version o the Criminal Code. Te Courtunderstood that, when reviewed in the uture, theapplicants preventive detention would be pro-longed only subject to the strict test o proportio-nality set out in the Federal Constitutional Courts

judgment. Accordingly, the lawulness o theirpreventive detention was not called into question.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

dpvt ty/Pvt t

ty-v ut t u gt tvtwt vw t pvtg ttg u-p ttv :violation

att u tt t pt qut-q ut ut p tt t -ttv t p p : violation

Shimovolos Russia/Russie- 30194/09Judgment/Arrt 21.6.2011 [Section I]

Facts In May 2007 a European Union-RussiaSummit was scheduled to take place in Samara(Russia). At about the same time the applicantsname was registered as a human-rights activist inthe so-called surveillance database. Te localauthorities were inormed that protests wereplanned during the summit and that it wasnecessary to stop all members o organisations

planning such protests in order to prevent unlawuland extremist acts. Tey were also inormed thatthe applicant was coming to Samara by train severaldays beore the summit and that he might becarrying extremist literature. When the applicantarrived in Samara, he was stopped by the policeand escorted to the police station at around12.15 p.m. under the threat o orce. At the policestation the ocers drew up an attendance reportusing a standard template entitled Attendancereport in respect o a person who has committedan administrative oence. However, they crossed

out the phrase who has committed an adminis-trative oence. Te applicant was released some45 minutes later. he police oicer who had


14/35


14 Article 5 1 Article 5 1 ()

escorted the applicant to the police station laterstated that he had done so in order to prevent himrom committing administrative and criminaloences.

Law Article 5 1: Given the element o coercion

in bringing the applicant to the police station andnotwithstanding the short duration o his arrest,the Court concluded that the applicant had beendeprived o his liberty. he applicant was notsuspected o having committed any oence, butinstead, as submitted by the Government, had beenarrested or the purpose o preventing him romcommitting oences o an extremist nature.However, no concrete oences which the applicanthad to be prevented rom committing were evermentioned and the vague reerence to oences oan extremist nature was not specic enough to

satisy the requirements o Article 5. Te onlyconcrete suspicion against the applicant was thathe might be carrying extremist literature, but eventhat was dispelled when the applicant was oundnot to have any luggage upon his arrival in Samara.Te applicant was arrested solely because his namehad appeared in the surveillance database andthe only reason or that registration was the actthat he was a human-rights activist. Te Courtstressed that membership o human-rightsorganisations could not in any case orm sucientbasis or suspicion justiying an individuals arrest.In conclusion, the applicants arrest could notreasonably be considered to have been necessaryto prevent his committing an oence within themeaning o Article 5 1 (c).


Article 8: Te applicants name was registered inthe surveillance database, which collected inor-mation about his movements, by train or air, wit-hin Russia and thereore amounted to an intere-rence with his private lie. he creation and

maintenance o the database and the procedure orits operation were governed by a ministerial orderwhich had never been published or otherwise madeaccessible to the public. Consequently, the Courtound that the domestic law did not indicate withsucient clarity the scope and manner o exerciseo the discretion conerred on the domestic autho-rities to collect and store inormation on indivi-duals private lives in the database. In particular, itdid not set out in a orm accessible to the publicany indication o the minimum saeguards againstabuse.


Article 41: Claim made out o time.

at 5 1 ( )

expu

dtt ppt pt wt u y cut pvtg ptt w : inadmissible

mt t u qut t-pt xpu uu pv cu : irrecevable

S.P. Belgium/Belgique- 12572/08Decision/Dcision 14.6.2011 [Section II]

En ait Le requrant, ressortissant sri-lankais,arriva en Belgique en octobre 2003. outes sesdemandes dasile, sa demande de rgularisation desjour pour raisons exceptionnelles et sa demandede suspension en extrme urgence de lordre dequitter le territoire urent rejetes, et ses recoursnaboutirent pas. Le 12 vrier 2008, le requrantut plac en centre erm. Le 13 mars 2008, la Courdemanda, en vertu de larticle 39 de son rglement,la suspension de la procdure dexpulsion vers leSri Lanka. La mesure ut applique le jour mme

jusquau 27 mars 2008 dans un premier temps etut, cette date, prolonge jusqu nouvel ordre .Le requrant ut libr le 8 avril 2008 et reut ordrede quitter le territoire belge avant le 13 avril 2008.

En droit Article 5 1 ) : la loi sur les trangersautorisait lOice des trangers maintenir lerequrant en centre erm par priode de deux moiset celui-ci a t libr avant lexpiration du dlaiinitial de dtention prvu par la loi. Le ait quelapplication dune mesure provisoire empchaittemporairement la poursuite de la procdure dex-pulsion lencontre du requrant ne rend pasillgale sa dtention, dans la mesure o les autoritsbelges envisageaient toujours son expulsion et ola procdure, suspendue, tait toujours en cours (voir ce sujet larrt Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien]

c. France, no 25389/05, 26 avril 2007, Note dinor-mation no 96). Si le prolongement draisonnablede la dtention aurait pu avoir une incidence sursa lgalit au sens de larticle 5, le requrant at libr onze jours aprs la prolongation jusqunouvel ordre de la mesure provisoire. Cette priodena pas excd le dlai raisonnable ncessaire auxns de lobjecti poursuivi.

Conclusion : irrecevable (daut manieste de on-dement).

Par ailleurs, les gries du requrant sous langle des

articles 3 et 13 de la Convention ont galementt dclars irrecevables pour daut manieste deondement.


15/35


15Article 5 1 ( )

extt

dtt pg xtt t t Utstt ru t w, wvtg swtz pvt , wu wt : no

violationdtt, vu xtt v ett-U, u t u, vu su tt pv t vqu t u p : non-violation

Adamov Switzerland/Suisse- 3052/06Judgment/Arrt 21.6.2011 [Section II]

En ait En 2004, une procdure pnale ut ou-verte aux Etats-Unis contre le requrant, en raisonde lusage quil aurait ait de onds mis la

disposition de lEtat russe par les Etats-Unis alorsquil exerait en Russie les onctions de ministre delEnergie. Le 11 vrier 2005, il obtint un visa dequatre mois pour la Suisse, quil avait expressmentdemand en vue de rendre visite sa lle domicilie Berne. Le 21 vrier 2005, une procdure pnaleut ouverte en Suisse contre la lle du requrantpour blanchiment dargent. Les soupons portaienten particulier sur des onds que son pre lui auraitremis. Par lintermdiaire de lavocat de sa lle,M. Adamov t savoir quil tait prt tre entenduen Suisse par le juge dinstruction et indiqua

quelle priode il comptait de toute aon venir enSuisse. Le juge dinstruction proposa deux datespossibles daudition pendant cette priode. Arriven Suisse le 20 avril 2005, le requrant exprima saprrence pour le 2 mai. Le mme jour, le jugedinstruction rdigea une convocation quil adressaau domicile priv de la ille de lintress. Le28 avril 2005, le juge dinstruction demanda auministre public de Pennsylvanie, aux Etats-Unis,sil disposait dinormations pouvant tre utilesdans la procdure contre la lle de M. Adamov.Lors de cet entretien, le juge annona quil enten-

drait lintress le 2 mai. Le 29 avril 2005, leministre de la Justice des Etats-Unis adressa lOce dral suisse de la justice une requtedarrestation provisoire du requrant, en vertu dutrait dextradition conclu en 1990 entre la Con-dration suisse et les Etats-Unis dAmrique. Lemme jour, lOce dral de la justice mit unordre darrestation urgent de M. Adamov, qui utcommuniqu au juge dinstruction. Le 2 mai 2005, lissue de laudience, le juge dinstruction signia lintress son arrestation et celui-ci ut imm-diatement transr par la police la prison de

Berne. Le 3 mai, lOce dral de la justice dlivraun ordre de dtention provisoire dextradition, quiut remis M. Adamov le lendemain. Le 17 mai

2005, la Russie demanda galement lextraditionde lintress. Le 9 juin 2005, le ribunal pnaldral admit le recours du requrant et leva lordredarrestation extraditionnelle qui le rappait. Le 14

juillet 2005, cette dcision ut inrme par leribunal dral. Considrant que M. Adamov

stait rendu en Suisse dans un but priv (rendrevisite sa lle) ainsi que proessionnel, et non poury tre entendu comme tmoin dans le cadre duneprocdure pnale, la Haute Juridiction jugea quela clause du sau-conduit navait pas lieu dtreapplique et quil pouvait donc tre dtenu. Fin

juin 2005, les autorits amricaines dposrent auxautorits suisses une demande ormelle dextra-dition. Dtenu jusquau 30 dcembre 2005,M. Adamov ut nalement extrad vers la Russieen application dune dcision administrative duribunal dral, concluant que priorit devait tre

donne la demande russe dextradition, lintresstant de nationalit russe et accus de stre livr des activits criminelles dans ce pays. En 2007, leribunal pnal dral rejeta une demande dindem-nisation pour lirrgularit allgue de la dtentionsubie par le requrant.

En droit Article 5 1 ) : le placement du requ-rant en dtention extraditionnelle relve bien decette disposition. Le ait quil avait t plac endtention en vue dtre extrad vers les Etats-Unismais ut nalement extrad vers la Russie ne change

rien laaire (cette circonstance nest pas lie un constat dillgalit de la dtention). Le but dela clause du sau-conduit invoque en lespce estdviter quun tmoin, tenu de comparatre dansun autre pays, ny soit dtenu sans que les conditionsde ond ou les ormalits prvues pour lextraditionsoient observes. Ainsi, le tmoin bncie duneimmunit pour toute arrestation et poursuite pourdes aits ou condamnations antrieurs son dpartdu territoire de lEtat requis.

Concernant la question de savoir si le requrantpouvait se prvaloir de cette clause, celui-ci nest

pas all spcialement en Suisse pour tmoigner dansla procdure pnale dirige contre sa lle. Au con-traire, il avait clairement indiqu dans sa dpositiondu 2 mai 2005 devant le juge dinstruction quilavait librement choisi de venir en Suisse pour desraisons personnelles (rendre visite sa lle) ainsique proessionnelles. Cette version est dailleurscorrobore par larticle quil a rdig et publi dansun journal russe. En outre, aucune citation com-paratre devant les autorits suisses ne lui a tadresse dans son Etat de rsidence, comme lexi-gent les dispositions nationales et internationales

pertinentes pour que puisse jouer la clause du sau-conduit. La convocation pour laudition du 2 mai2005 a t adresse par le juge dinstruction au


16/35


16 Article 5 1 () Article 5 4

domicile priv de sa lle, au moment o il se trou-vait dj prsent sur le territoire suisse.

Le cas despce nayant ainsi impliqu aucune co-opration intertatique au sens du droit delentraide judiciaire, il sensuit quil ny avait pas

lieu de mettre le requrant labri darrestation oude poursuite pour des aits ou condamnations ant-rieurs et que la clause du sau-conduit ntait dslors pas applicable son cas. M. Adamov, qui voya-geait rquemment en dehors des rontires russeset avait accs des avocats, devait tre conscientdes risques quil prenait en se dplaant ltranger,compte tenu de louverture aux Etats-Unis duneprocdure pnale dirige contre lui. Il napparatpas quil ait, lorsquil a accept de tmoigner devantle juge dinstruction suisse, soulev lui-mme laquestion du sau-conduit. En acceptant de se

rendre en Suisse sans se prvaloir des garantiesdcoulant des instruments pertinents en matiredentraide internationale, il a consciemment renonc bncier de limmunit dcoulant de la clausedu sau-conduit. Concernant la thse du requrantselon laquelle les autorits suisses auraient us deruses ayant pour nalit de le dpourvoir de sonimmunit, cest sur la base de linormation selonlaquelle il se rendait en Suisse dans un but priv etproessionnel et quil tait dispos tmoigner danslaaire concernant sa lle que le juge dinstructionla convoqu en laissant lintress le choix de la

date. Ce magistrat na donc employ aucune ruseou astuce pour provoquer sa prsence en Suisse.En outre, en inormant dans le cadre de la pro-cdure visant sa lle les autorits amricaines dela prsence de M. Adamov en Suisse, les autoritssuisses nont pas ait preuve de mauvaise oi sonencontre : elles ont simplement agi dans le respectdes accords de coopration qui liait les deux Etatspour lutter contre la criminalit internationale.

Au nal, la dtention du requrant, qui reposait surun ordre darrestation valable et intervenait dans un

but de coopration intertatique dans la lutte contrela criminalit internationale, na enreint ni la clausedu sau-conduit ni le principe de bonne oi.

Conclusion: non-violation (quatre voix contre trois).

at 5 4

rvw wu tt/ct gt ttsp vw/ct

it y y sup cut ut tt pp gt tt

p v y tt xp:violations

du xv u pu vt cuup t u x u u gt u t tt p xpt

u tt ut : violationsS.T.S. Netherlands/Pays-Bas- 277/05

Judgment/Arrt 7.6.2011 [Section III]

Facts In October 2002 a judge authorised theplacement o the applicant, a minor with a historyo oending and behavioural diculties, in custodyor treatment. Te initial three-month period wasextended several times until the judge made anorder or a urther years extension eective romOctober 2003. In December 2003 a court o appeal

reduced that period until 1 May 2004. Te appli-cant appealed in mid-January 2004 to the SupremeCourt, which in November 2004 declared hisappeal inadmissible or lack o interest, as the periodcovered by the court o appeals order had lapsedin the meantime.

Law Article 5 4

(a) Speediness Given the need or the court oappeal to gather inormation rom a variety osources and allow a variety o parties to participateeectively in the proceedings, the period o 63 days

it had taken to reach its decision did not, inisolation, raise an issue o speediness. Te samecould not be said o the proceedings beore theSupreme Court, which had given its decision294 days ater the applicant had lodged his appealon points o law. Such a lapse o time appeared initsel inordinate. Whatever the reasons or thedelay, the national judicial authorities had beenunder an obligation to make the necessary admin-istrative arrangements to ensure that urgent matters

were dealt with speedily, particularly when personal

liberty was at stake.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

(b) Eectiveness Te applicants appeal on pointso law had been lodged with the Supreme Court

just over three and a hal months beore the expiryo the court o appeals six-month authorisationor the applicants custodial placement. However,no grounds had been stated why the Supreme Courtcould not reasonably have been expected to giveits decision within that time. Absent such grounds,the lack o a nal decision, beore the validity o

the authorisation or the applicants custodialplacement had expired, was itsel suicient todeprive the applicants appeal on points o law o


17/35


17Article 5 4 Article 6 1 (civil)

its practical eectiveness as a preventive or evenreparative remedy.

In addition, in declaring the applicants appeal onpoints o law inadmissible as having become devoido interest, the Supreme Court had deprived it o

whatever urther eect it might have had. A ormerdetainee might well have a legal interest in thedetermination o the lawulness o his detentioneven ater his release, or example, in relation tohis enorceable right to compensation guaranteedby Article 5 5, when it might be necessary tosecure a judicial decision which would override anypresumption under domestic law that a detentionorder given by a competent authority was per selawul. Te proceedings or deciding the lawulnesso the applicants detention were, thereore, noteective.



arTicle 6

at 6 1 (v)

appty/appta t ut/a u tu

iuty jut pvtg -t py g y t -g :Article 6 applicable; violation

iut jut t p ttt u t u py -tt u tg : article6 applicable ; violation

Sabeh El Leil France- 34869/05Judgment/Arrt 29.6.2011 [GC]

En ait Le requrant est un ressortissant ranais.En aot 1980, il ut engag en contrat dure ind-termine comme comptable par lambassade duKowet Paris. Il ut promu che comptable en1985. En mars 2000, lambassade le licencia pourmotis conomiques. Le requrant saisit alors leconseil de prudhommes de Paris qui, en novembre2000, jugea que le licenciement tait sans causerelle et srieuse et condamna lEtat du Kowet payer au requrant diverses indemnits et desdommages et intrts. Contestant le montant des

sommes accordes, le requrant interjeta appel.La cour dappel inrma le jugement de premireinstance, notant que, compte tenu de son niveau

de responsabilit et de la nature de lensemble deses onctions, le requrant participait lexercicede lactivit de puissance publique de lEtat duKowet par lentremise de sa reprsentation diplo-matique en France. Ses demandes contre lEtat duKowet taient donc irrecevables en vertu du prin-cipe de limmunit de juridiction des Etats tran-gers. La Cour de cassation dclara non admis lepourvoi du requrant.

En droit Article 6 1

a) Recevabilit Sur lexception de non-puisementdes voies de recours internes: lors de son pourvoi encassation, le requrant a dune part contest lesarmations de la cour dappel quant ltendueexacte de ses onctions. Il nie avoir exerc de ma-nire autonome ses activits dans lintrt du ser-vice public diplomatique et avoir particip lexercice de lactivit de puissance publique delEtat du Kowet. Dautre part, il a galement con-test lapplication de limmunit de juridiction sa cause. Dans ces conditions, le grie soumis devantla Cour a bien t invoqu en substance devant les

juridictions internes.

Conclusion : exception prliminaire rejete (unani-mit).

b)Applicabilit La Cour rappelle que, selon larrtVilho Eskelinen et autres1, deux conditions doivent

tre remplies pour que lEtat dendeur puissedevant la Cour invoquer le statut de onctionnairedun requrant an de le soustraire la protectionoerte par larticle 6. En premier lieu, le droit in-terne de lEtat concern doit avoir expressmentexclu laccs un tribunal pour le poste ou la cat-gorie de salaris en question. En second lieu, cettedrogation doit reposer sur des motis objectis lis lintrt de lEtat. Or, dans la prsente aaire,les onctions du requrant au sein de lambassadene saurait, en soi, justier une drogation laccs un tribunal reposant sur des motis objectis lis

lintrt de lEtat. Par ailleurs, le recours du requ-rant devant les juridictions ranaises portant surlobtention dindemnits pour licenciement sanscause relle et srieuse, sa contestation est bienrelative des droits de caractre civil. Larticle 6 1est donc applicable en lespce.

Conclusion : applicable (unanimit).

c) Fond De mme que le droit daccs un tribu-nal est inhrent la garantie dun procs quitableaccorde par larticle 6 1, certaines restrictions laccs doivent tre tenues pour lui tre inhrentes ;

1. Vilho Eskelinen et autres c. Finlande [GC], no 63235/00,

19 avril 2007, Note dinormation no 96.


18/35


18 Article 6 1 (civil)

on en trouve un exemple dans les limitations gn-ralement admises par la communaut des nationscomme relevant de la rgle de limmunit des Etats.outeois, dans les cas o lapplication de la rglede limmunit juridictionnelle de lEtat entravelexercice du droit daccs la justice, la Cour doitrechercher si cette limitation est onde.

En lespce, les restrictions au droit daccs untribunal poursuivaient un but lgitime, tel quedvelopp dans laaire Cudak1. Il convient ds lorsdexaminer prsent la question de savoir si larestriction litigieuse au droit daccs du requrant un tribunal tait proportionne au but poursuivi.Il aut pour cela considrer la Convention des Na-tions unies de 2004 sur les immunits juridic-tionnelles des Etats et de leurs biens qui, dans sonarticle 11, pose le principe que la rgle de limmu-

nit ne sapplique pas aux contrats de travailconclus entre un Etat et le personnel de ses missionsdiplomatiques ltranger, sau exceptions limi-tativement numres. Ainsi le requrant, quintait ni agent diplomatique ou consulaire duKowet ni ressortissant de cet Etat, ne relevait dau-cune des exceptions numres larticle 11 decette convention. De son recrutement son licen-ciement par lambassade du Kowet, il a succes-sivement exerc les onctions de comptable, puisde che comptable. Une attestation de onction aprcis les tches du requrant en tant que checomptable sans voquer dautres tches au sein ou lextrieur de ce service. De mme, le certicatde travail tabli en janvier 2000 ne prcise que saqualit de che du service de comptabilit. La seulautre onction quil ait exerce est celle de dlgudu personnel titre ocieux. Ni les juridictionsinternes ni le Gouvernement nont dmontr enquoi ces onctions auraient t objectivement liesaux intrts suprieurs de lEtat du Kowet. La courdappel se contente darmer lexistence de respon-sabilits supplmentaires, sans aucunement justier

sa dcision pour expliquer les lments, quil sagissede documents ou de aits ports sa connaissance.La Cour de cassation na pas davantage motiv sadcision, se contentant dexaminer laaire dans lecadre de la procdure pralable dadmission despourvois en cassation qui permet un degr de dbat

juridique portant sur le mrite du pourvoi sensi-blement rduit. En outre, les dispositions de lar-ticle 11 de la Convention de 2004, en particulierles exceptions qui y sont numres et qui doiventtre strictement interprtes, nont pas davantaget prises en considration par la cour dappel et la

1. Cudak c. Lituanie[GC], no 15869/02, 23 mars 2010, Note

dinormation no 128.

Cour de cassation. En conclusion, en accueillantlexception tire de limmunit de juridiction et enrejetant la demande du requrant, sans motivationpertinente et susante, et nonobstant les disposi-tions applicables du droit international, les juri-dictions ranaises ont ailli au maintien dunrapport raisonnable de proportionnalit. Elles ontainsi port atteinte la substance mme du droitdu requrant accder un tribunal.


Article 41 : 60 000 EUR pour dommage matrielet prjudice moral.

d t gt t pp gt p-y jugt:Article 6 applicable; violation

d pp t u jugt tut :article 6 applicable ; violation

Mercieca and Others/et autres Malta/Malte- 21974/07

Judgment/Arrt 14.6.2011 [Section IV]

Facts Te applicants were sued, personally andin their capacity as partners o an audit irm.During the proceedings, they raised a preliminaryplea, which was dismissed by the court in a pre-liminary judgment on 1 December 2003. On3 December the applicants sought leave to appeal,

which was granted on 12 December. On 29 De-cember the applicants lodged their appeal, but it

was dismissed as being out o time. Te Court oAppeal noted that while the legislator had clearlyestablished that the time-limit or lodging anappeal against an interlocutory decree ran rom thedate o authorisation to appeal, in respect o anappeal against a judgment the legislator hadmade no distinction between a judgment and apartial judgment. It ollowed that the twenty-day

time-limit which ran rom the date o deliveryo a judgment applied also to appeals necessitatingprior leave to appeal. Tat decision was overturnedby the Civil Court, which held that a right toappeal could not arise beore leave to appeal hadbeen given, so that the applicants had eectivelybeen denied access to a court, in breach o Article 6o the Convention. However, on an appeal by the

Attorney General, the Consti tutional Courtreused to uphold the rst-instance judgment aternding that, although the interpretation given tothe law by the Court o Appeal had been erroneous,

that did not suce to nd a violation o the Con-vention as the applicants had had the opportunityto appeal ater the nal judgment.


19/35


19Article 6 1 (civil)

Law Article 6 1

(a)Applicability According to the applicants, theyhad been denied an interlocutory appeal against apreliminary judgment. Te latter could be equatedto interim or provisional measures and proceedings.

Tus, the same criteria were relevant to determinewhether Article 6 was applicable. Te main pro-ceedings dealt with civil liability. Had the CivilCourt upheld the applicants pleas in its preliminary

judgment, there would have been no scope or aurther determination, since the applicants liability

would have been excluded at that stage. Te inter-locutory appeal would, thereore, have determinedthe same civil rights and obligations at issue in themain proceedings. Article 6 was, thereore, inprinciple applicable to the instant case.

(b)Merits Te applicants time to appeal hadbeen reduced rom twenty days to nine days. Whileit was true that the applicants could have lodgedtheir appeal within those nine days, the Consti-tutional Court had specically acknowledged thatthe law had been wrongly applied by the Court o

Appeal, with the consequence that the applicantsappeal had been unairly rejected. In these cir-cumstances, the European Court ound no reasonto second guess that decision. Tus, the applicablerules had been construed in such a way as to

prevent the applicants appeal being examined onthe merits, with the consequence that their rightunder domestic law o access to the Court o

Appeal at that point in time had been impaired.Te Constitutional Court had not ound a violationo Article 6 o the Convention, since the applicantscould avail themselves o an appeal at a later stageo the proceedings. However, it had not beendisputed that the proceedings at issue would haveended at that stage had the applicants appeal beenheard on the merits and upheld. Tat eventuality

would have avoided the applicants the expense and

anxiety related to the continuation o burdensomecourt proceedings. In consequence, the EuropeanCourt was o the view that an appeal at the end othe proceedings on the merits, even i that couldbe guaranteed under domestic law and practice,

would not have suced to annul the consequencessuered by the applicants as a result o the wronguldismissal o their appeal at an earlier stage. In sum,the domestic courts restrictive interpretation o therelevant procedural rules had denied the applicantsthe right to lodge an appeal.


Article 41: No award.

a t ut/a u tu

ru ru ut t x gt ru utt g ttptt ru w: violation

ru jut u x uu t utt u ptt uu qut tptt u t t :violation

Zylkov Russia/Russie- 5613/04Judgment/Arrt 21.6.2011 [Section I]

Facts Te applicant was a Russian national withpermanent residence in Vilnius, Lithuania. In 2003he applied or a child allowance payable by the

Russian Federation to parents with minor children.He lodged his claim with the social-securitydivision o the Russian Embassy in Vilnius, but it

was reused on the grounds that he was ineligibleor the allowance. Te applicant sought to challengethat decision beore a district court in Moscow, butthat court declared his claim inadmissible, ndingthat he should have lodged his claim with a courtin Lithuania.

Law Article 6 1: Te district court had reusedto consider the claim lodged by the applicant, aRussian national, against a Russian State authority,incorporated under the laws o Russia, suggestingthat the matter was subject to the jurisdiction o acourt in Lithuania. Te Government had supportedthat view. Te Court, however, was not convincedby that line o reasoning, in particular since theRussian courts had ailed to reer to any lawbinding on the Lithuanian courts that made themcompetent to resolve the matter or to explain howtheir view that the matter was to be considered bya oreign court complied with the principles o

international law on State immunity. Moreover,the Russian authorities had advised the applicantto apply to a oreign court without even considering

whether such an act would be easible in view othe relevant provisions o the Vienna Conventionon Diplomatic Relations or the existing agreementbetween Russia and Lithuania. Te Court con-cluded that such a situation amounted to a denialo justice, which impaired the very essence o theapplicants right o access to a court.




20/35


20 Article 6 1 (civil)

ipt pt tu/Tupt t pt

ag k ptty w cttutcut Pt ju tt t

t pt p v pg : no violation

agt qu ptt u tqu tt ju u pt cu ttut vt pt u pt pu vtu tu : non-violation

Bellizzi Malta/Malte- 46575/09Judgment/Arrt 21.6.2011 [Section III]

Facts Te rst applicant and his wie brought

civil proceedings against a maritime authority orpermission to use a mooring berth. Ater ailing inthat action they instituted constitutional-redressproceedings claiming various violations o hisConvention rights. While at rst instance theirclaims were upheld, the Constitutional Courtreversed the judgment. In their application to theEuropean Court, the applicants (the rst applicantand his children, as heirs to the rst applicants

wie) complained that the Constitutional Courthad not been impartial because the judicial assistantassigned to the Oce o the Chie Justice (theChie Justice presided over the ConstitutionalCourt) had been on the team o lawyers who hadrepresented the maritime authority in the earliercivil proceedings.

Law Article 6 1

(a)Admissibility Te Government had objectedthat the applicants had ailed to exhaust domesticremedies as they had not lodged a resh set oconstitutional proceedings complaining o theairness o the rst set. While there was no reason

or the Court to doubt that constitutional pro-ceedings were accessible and capable o providingredress or human-rights violations, what was oconcern was the length o another set o consti-tutional proceedings at a stage where the initialcomplaint had been conclusively decided aterseveral years o litigation beore various degrees o

jurisdiction including seven years beore courtso constitutional jurisdiction. Lodging a reshconstitutional complaint would have involved acumbersome procedure and the length o the pro-ceedings would have detracted rom their

eectiveness. Moreover, while the constitutionaljurisdictions (the Civil Court in its constitutionaljurisdiction and the Constitutional Court) would

have been dierently constituted, the ormer wouldmost likely have had to rule on the conduct o theChie Justice and other hierarchically superior

judges and this could have raised issues in respecto the impartiality and independence requirements.Consequently, even though the domestic lawprovided a remedy against a nal judgment o theConstitutional Court, in view o the speciicsituation o the Constitutional Court in the do-mestic legal order, it was not one requiring exhaus-tion in the circumstances o the instant case.

Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unani-mously).

(b)Merits Te principles o impartiality estab-lished in the Courts case-law applied equally to

jurors, proessional and lay judges and other o-cials exercising judicial unctions such as assessorsand court ocials such as reerendaries. Teexercise o dierent unctions within the judicialprocess by the same person or hierarchical or otherlinks with another actor in the proceedings gaveraise to objectively justied misgivings as to theimpartiality o the tribunal. It thereore had to beascertained in each individual case whether theconnection was o such nature and degree as toindicate a lack o impartiality on the part o thetribunal concerned. Te time-rame was relevant

when assessing the signicance o a judges previous

relationship to an opposing party.In the present case the Court had to examine theimpartiality o the Constitutional Court in theapplicants case in the light o the specicities othe judicial assistants role within the domestic legaland judicial system. Tat role included assisting inthe judicial process and, at the request o the court,participating in the proceedings, taking witnesstestimony and adavits, receiving documentaryevidence and holding sittings as directed. Judicialassistants were also entitled to draw up opinions

in respect o the cases put to the court. Such taskscould be o important signicance to the judicialprocess. In the present case the judicial assistanthad actively represented the applicants opponentat an earlier stage o the proceedings, but her in-volvement had been temporary and she had with-drawn rom the case almost six years beore theConstitutional Courts decision. As to her par-ticipation in the constitutional proceedings, it wasnoted that apart rom pointing to her general roleas judicial assistant to the Chie Justice the appli-cants had not provided any evidence to suggest she

had been entrusted with the case. Indeed, underdomestic law a judicial assistant could be involvedin any named case only at the courts request and


21/35


21Article 6 1 (civil) Article 6 1 (criminal/pnal)

the Chie Justice had declared she had had no in-volvement. Te applicants had not contested theveracity o that statement and had acknowledgedthat he had been unaware o the identity othe Chie Justices judicial assistant, so conrmingshe had not taken any witness or documentaryevidence, held sittings or issued procedural dead-lines. Accordingly, since it had not been establishedthat the judicial assistant had participated in theimpugned proceedings, there were no ascertainableacts capable o raising legitimate doubts as to theimpartiality o the Constitutional Court in thepresent case.


at 6 1 (/p)

g/P qut

ity t g u p-ut wg t pupt tt utgt t qutt k v w : violation

ipt up u ut t u, ppt ut u t pt u u jut tu u u

ut : violation

Klouvi France- 30754/03Judgment/Arrt 30.6.2011 [Section V]

En ait En 1994, la requrante dposa plaintecontre son ancien suprieur hirarchique, P., pourviol et harclement sexuel, et une inormation utouverte en 1995 du che dagression sexuelle parpersonne abusant de lautorit conre par sesonctions. Un non-lieu ut prononc par le jugedinstruction, en 1998, en raison de charges

insusantes. Paralllement, la personne vise parla plainte engagea lencontre de lintresse uneaction en dnonciation calomnieuse. Le tribunalcorrectionnel condamna Mme Klouvi une peinede prison avec sursis et au paiement de dommageset intrts. La cour dappel conrma le jugementen tous points et la Cour de cassation rejeta lepourvoi de la requrante.

En droit Article 6 1 et 2 : linormation appro-ondie avec recherche dlments matriels etaudition de nombreux tmoins la suite de la

plainte de la requrante ne permit pas de se orgerune certitude et ntablit pas de charges susantescontre P. pour le renvoyer devant le tribunal cor-

rectionnel. Dans ces circonstances, une ordonnancede non-lieu ut rendue. Par la suite, dans le cadrede laction en dnonciation calomnieuse, le tribunalt une application stricte de larticle 226-10 ducode pnal en estimant que de la dcision de non-lieu rsultait ncessairement la ausset des aitsdnoncs. En outre, dans la mesure o la requrantestait plainte de viols rpts et de harclementsexuel, elle ne pouvait ignorer la ausset de cesaits, do il rsultait que llment intentionneltait caractris. La cour dappel conrma ce juge-ment, considrant que lapplication de la pr-somption restait dans des limites raisonnables,conormes au principe du procs quitable.

La requrante se trouvait ainsi conronte unedouble prsomption une prsomption lgaleayant pour base larticle prcit du code pnal et

une prsomption de ait dgage par la jurisprudenceinterne concernant llment intentionnel quirduisait de manire signicative ses droits garantispar larticle 6. En eet, le tribunal ne pouvait peserles diverses donnes en sa possession, ce qui auraitt considr comme remettant en cause les conclu-sions du juge dinstruction dans son ordonnancede non-lieu, et il devait recourir automatiquementaux prsomptions lgales. La requrante navait dece ait aucune possibilit dapporter des preuves soumettre au dbat contradictoire devant le tri-

bunal pour tablir la ralit des aits et son absencede culpabilit avant que celui-ci se prononce. Enjuillet 2010, une loi modiant le texte de larticleen cause du code pnal ut adopte et il aut dsor-mais que la personne dnonce ait t dclare, parune dcision ayant autorit de chose juge, noncoupable du ait en question. Ainsi, la requrantena pas pu bncier dun procs quitable et de laprsomption dinnocence car elle ne pouvait aucu-nement se disculper de laccusation de dnonciationcalomnieuse porte contre elle.


Article 41 : 8 000 EUR pour prjudice moral.

Tu t y w/Tu tp

appt y sp cutt tyg upt g: no violation

attut u qut u

jut xt ptt t upt t tg : non-violation


22/35


22 Article 6 1 (criminal/pnal)

Fruni Slovakia/Slovaquie- 8014/07Judgment/Arrt 21.6.2011 [Section III]

Facts In June 2002 the applicant, who was thechairman o various nancial institutions acceptingmoney rom the public, was arrested and charged

with large-scale raud and other oences. He wasdetained pending trial and his applications orrelease were reused on the grounds o the gravityo the charges, the risk o his absconding and theextensive amount o evidence that had to be obtai-ned. In 2005 he was indicted to stand trial in aregional court exercising the powers o the SpecialCourt, which had been established in 2003 to trycertain public ocials or crimes o corruption andorganised crime. Te applicant unsuccessully chal-lenged the jurisdiction o that court and in January

2007 was convicted o nancial raud and conspi-racy. He appealed alleging, inter alia, that theSpecial Court was unconstitutional and that histrial had been unair. Te Special Division o theSupreme Court dismissed his appeal, and in April2008 the Constitutional Court declared his com-plaint inadmissible since there was no constitutio-nally relevant arbitrariness in the im-pugned deci-sions. Subsequently, however, the ConstitutionalCourt declared the statutory provisions establishingthe Special Court unconstitutional but ruled thatthis would not give ground or reopening procee-

dings which had already ended beore that court.Law Article 6 1: Te term established by law

was meant to ensure that the judicial organisationin a democratic society [did] not depend on thediscretion o the executive, but that it [was] regu-lated by law emanating rom Parliament. Te

jurisdiction and competence o the Special Courtand the Special Division o the Supreme Court

were dened by legislation adopted in 2003 andproceedings beore them were subject to the Codeo Criminal Procedure. Te reasons or the Con-

stitutional Courts decision that the statutory pro-visions establishing the Special Court were uncons-titutional appeared to be linked to the conceptualrole and institutional status o the Special Courtin the constitutional and judicial system o Slovakiarather than its quality and independence as a judi-cial body. Tis explained why the ConstitutionalCourt had stressed that nal decisions rendered bythe Special Court were in no way aected by thesubsequent unconstitutionality o the underlyinglegal basis o that court. Consequently, there wasnothing to suggest that the Special Court and the

Special Division o the Supreme Court involvedin the determination o the applicants case werenot tribunals established by law.

Moreover, neither Article 6 nor any other Con-vention provision required the States to comply withany theoretical constitutional concepts regardingthe permissible limits o the powers interaction.Te question was always whether, in a given case,the requirements o the Convention were met. In

this connection, the Court observed that the judgeso the Special Court and o the Special Division othe Supreme Court were career judges whose termso oce were not limited in time, and who thushad equal status to that o any other judge inSlovakia. Tey could be recalled i they ceased tomeet the security vetting criteria, but this appearednever to have occurred, and in any event, in sucha case the judge involved could seek judicial review.Te Special Court was subject to the supervisory

jurisdiction o the Special Division o the SupremeCourt on appeal and both jurisdictions were

subject to supervision by the Constitutional Courtin the event o a constitutional complaint. In sum,the Court ound no grounds or the applicant tohave had legitimate misgivings as to the inde-pendence o the Special Court, which had triedhim, or o the Special Division o the SupremeCourt, which had determined his appeal.


Article 5 3: Te Constitutional Court had issueda decision concerning the reasonableness o thelength o the applicants detention in 2005, by

which time his detention had lasted just over threeyears. In justiying the applicants continueddetention at that time, the Constitutional Courtrelied on the wide-ranging criminal activity o

which the applicant stood accused, involving morethan 150,000 aggrieved parties and vast nancialdamage. It also took note o the large amount oevidence which had to be obtained and assessedand, in view o his personal and nancial situation,the serious risk o his absconding. he Courtaccepted these reasons as relevant and sucient inthe circumstances. Tere was no indication o

procedural inactivity on the part o the authorities.Conversely, the deence strategy had been markedby attempts to obstruct the proceedings. In thesecircumstances, the Constitutional Courts assess-ment at the time was acceptable. Following thatcourts decision in 2005, the applicants detentionhad lasted or another year, our months andeighteen days, but he had ailed to exhaust domesticremedies in respect o that period. In that con-nection, the Court noted that a constitutionalcomplaint challenging exclusively the lawulnesso the applicants pre-trial detention but not itslength was not sucient.

Conclusion: inadmissible (non-exhaustion o do-mestic remedies).


23/35


23Article 6 2 Article 7 1

at 6 2

Pupt /Ppt

ity t g u p-ut wg t pupt tt utgt t qutt k v w : violation

ipt up u ut t u, ppt ut u t pt u u jut tu u uut : violation

Klouvi France- 30754/03

Judgment/Arrt 30.6.2011 [Section V]

(See Article 6 1 (criminal) above/Voir larticle 6 1 (pnal) ci-dessus page 21)

arTicle 7

at 7 1

Nullum crimen sine lege

cvt u put,w vv t t ppt tug pt t: inadmissible

ct pu ut u puu pu v ptp qutppt u y u p ptqu :irrecevable

Polednov Czech Republic/Rpublique tchque- 2615/10

Decision/Dcision 21.6.2011 [Section V]

En ait En 1950, la requrante participa, en tantque procureur, au procs contre Milada Horkovet dautres opposants au rgime communiste, quistait droul sous le contrle direct des autoritspolitiques de lpoque et qui stait sold parplusieurs peines capitales infiges et par lexcutiondes condamns. En 1990, le procureur gnralpronona un non-lieu lgard de tous les inculps,relevant que ceux-ci avaient t condamns tortpour des actes qui taient conormes aux principesdune socit dmocratique et que la procdure

pnale visait, de manire arbitraire, liquider pourdes raisons politiques les opposants la dictaturetotalitaire du rgime communiste.

En 2008, la requrante ut condamne pourmeurtre du ait davoir particip ce procs, sur labase du code pnal de 1852 applicable au momentdes aits. A laide de nombreuses preuves crites,les juridictions nationales tablirent que ce procsnavait t quune ormalit cense crer une appa-

rence de lgalit de la liquidation physique desopposants au rgime communiste, et que son d-roulement et son issue avaient t dtermins lavance par lorgane politique du parti communisteen coopration avec la Scurit dEtat. Elles consi-drrent que les principes ondamentaux de lquitde la procdure ainsi que les exigences thiquesintemporelles propres au pouvoir judiciaire avaientainsi t baous au cours de ce procs ; ds lors, le

jugement rendu son issue ne pouvait pas treconsidr comme un acte de justice, et les acteursde ce procs, parmi lesquels la requrante tait ladernire survivante, ne pouvaient pas se dchargerde leur responsabilit pnale en allguant quilsnavaient ait quexercer leurs onctions. Elles con-sidrrent galement que, de par sa participationactive et dlibre ce procs, la requrante avaitcontribu de manire signicative lui donner uneapparence de lgalit et remplir son but politique.Ds lors que le procs, aboutissant des peinescapitales et lexcution des condamns, constituaitle mcanisme meurtrier, elles conclurent quelintresse en tant que procureur aisant partie de

lappareil de justice avait t coauteur de ce meurtre.Eu gard des circonstances attnuantes telles quesa vie rgulire, son ge et son tat de sant ainsique le ait quelle avait commis linraction de actopar obissance, la requrante ut condamne sixans de prison, peine dune dure en dessous de lalimite normalement prvue. En mars 2009, lint-resse commena purger sa peine de prison. Endcembre 2010, le prsident de la Rpubliquepardonna la requrante le reste de sa peine et elleut remise en libert.

En droit Article 7 1 : il appartient la Cour

dexaminer si, au moment o elle a t commise,laction de la requrante constituait une inractiondinie avec suisamment daccessibilit et deprvisibilit notamment par le droit de lanciennechcoslovaquie.

La Cour estime que lapplication et linterprtationpar les juridictions internes des dispositions dedroit pnal en vigueur lpoque des ait

information note no. 142 (provisional version)

Documents