 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> HADI v. CROATIA - 42998/08 [2010] ECHR 1019 (1 July 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1019.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1019 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF HAĐI v. CROATIA
(Application no. 42998/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 July 2010
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hađi v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 June 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
“... the defendant Ðerđet Hađi has been charged with repeated criminal offences of aggravated larceny under Article 217 § 1(1) of the C[riminal] C[ode] which he committed on fifteen occasions between 17 December 2006 and 27 August 2007.
In view of the following facts: that the defendant Ðerđet Hađi has been charged with repeated criminal offences of aggravated larceny over a period of eight months; that according to the criminal records he has already been convicted of that same offence; that before this court several sets of criminal proceedings are pending [against him on charges] of the criminal offence under Article 217 of the C[riminal] C[ode]; that he has neither income nor property – this panel finds that these circumstances justify the suspicion that he could commit the same or similar criminal offence were he to remain at large, which makes ordering his detention under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure justified.”
The operative part of this decision reads:
“the appeal by the defendant Ðerđet Hađi is allowed, the first-instance decision (but not the applicant’s detention) is quashed and the case is to be remitted to that court for fresh deliberation.”
The relevant part of the reasoning reads:
“The appeal is well-founded.
The defendant’s allegations that the impugned decision was adopted in breach of the provisions of criminal procedure under Article 367 § 1 in conjunction with Article 105 § 1 of the C[ode of] C[riminal] P[rocedure] are well-founded. The reasoning of the impugned decision states that the meeting, held after the indictment had been lodged, at which the panel deliberated on [the defendant’s] detention, was held in the absence of D.O., the defence lawyer officially appointed for the defendant Ðerđet Hađi, in accordance with Article 105 § 2 of the CCP. However, the defendant questioned the finding of the first-instance court that defence counsel had been properly summoned to the panel meeting in question, pursuant to Article 105 § 1 of the CCP. The defendant alleged in his appeal that his officially appointed defence counsel had not been served with the decision of his appointment prior to the panel meeting of 12 December 2007 where [the panel] had been deliberating on his detention. Defence counsel had not been summoned to the panel meeting in question. The defendant maintained that the summons for the panel meeting had been sent to his defence counsel by fax on 12 December 2007 at 10.55 a.m. He enclosed a copy of the minutes of a different hearing held before the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court on 12 December 2007 in proceedings no. P-1831/00 showing that [the lawyer appointed for him] had been present at that hearing between 9.30 a.m. and 10.30. a.m. and that, therefore, since the panel meeting was held at 1 p.m., his defence counsel had not been properly summoned to that meeting.
The above circumstances show that the defence lawyer was not properly summoned to the panel meeting at which the defendant’s detention was deliberated upon, despite the fact that, pursuant to Article 105 § 1 of the CCP, he should have received the summons in time in order to be able to appear. Therefore, the right of the defendant to be defended by officially appointed counsel, who could only be a practising lawyer, at a panel meeting at which the decision on his detention was to be taken, and [whose absence] might influence that decision, was infringed.
It is also important to point out that the facts concerning the question whether the appointed lawyer received the decision of his appointment and whether he was properly summoned to the panel meeting at which the question of the defendant’s detention was to be deliberated upon could not be taken to have been correctly and sufficiently established, in view of the reasons stated above.
The first-instance court must establish whether the lawyer D.O. from Osijek received, and if so, when, the decision on his appointment as defence counsel and it must then properly summon him to a fresh panel meeting where the possibility of [implementing] a custodial measure is to be deliberated.
In view of the above considerations, the appeal of the defendant Ðerđet Hađi is to be allowed, the impugned decision quashed (but not the detention) and the case remitted to the first-instance court for fresh deliberation (Article 398 § 3 of the CCP).”
“5. ... the Constitutional Court has established that in the fresh proceedings the Osijek Municipal Court adopted a new decision no. Kv-544/07-7 (K-688/07-22) of 2 January 2008 ordering the applicant’s detention.
6. Since the new decision ordered the applicant’s detention and practically set aside the impugned decision, the conditions for considering the merits of the complaint had ceased to exist by the time the Constitutional Court was deciding on the applicant’s constitutional complaint,.”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
“1. Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she deems that a decision (pojedinačni akt) of a State body, a body of local and regional self-government, or a legal person with public authority, which has decided on his or her rights and obligations, or on a suspicion or accusation of a criminal act, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms, or his or her right to local and regional self-government guaranteed by the Constitution (hereinafter: constitutional right) ...”
Article 18
“...
(4) A three-judge panel of a Municipal Court adopts decisions out of a hearing.”
8. General Provisions on Detention
Article 101
(1) Detention may be imposed only if the same purpose cannot be achieved by another [preventive] measure.
(2) Detention shall be lifted and the detainee released as soon as the grounds for detention cease to exist.
(3) When deciding on detention, in particular its duration, the court shall take into consideration the proportionality between the gravity of the offence, the sentence which ... may be expected to be imposed, and the need to order and determine the duration of detention.
(4) The judicial authorities conducting the criminal proceedings shall proceed with particular urgency when the defendant is in detention and shall review of their own motion whether the grounds and legal conditions for detention have ceased to exist, in which case detention shall immediately be lifted.
9. Grounds for Ordering Detention
Article 102
“(1) Where reasonable suspicion exists that a person has committed a criminal offence, he or she may be placed in detention if:
...
3. special circumstances justify the suspicion that the person concerned might reoffend ...”
10. Decision on detention
Article 103
“(1) Detention may be ordered only in a written decision of the competent judicial authority.
...”
11. Judicial authority competent for ordering and lifting detention
Article 104
“...
(3) After the indictment has been lodged ... the detention is ordered, extended and lifted by a judicial panel under Article 18(4) of this Code. At the hearing ... the detention is ordered, extended and lifted by a judicial panel or a single judge conducting the hearing.
...”
Article 105
“(1) The State Attorney and defence counsel and, if needed, also the defendant, shall be invited to the panel meeting ... at which the court decides on ordering, lifting or extending the detention ...
...”
Article 107
“...
(2) After the indictment has been lodged ... a [judicial] panel ... shall examine every two months whether the statutory conditions for detention continue to exist ...”
Article 367 paragraph 1 enlists grave breaches of the provisions of criminal procedure.
Article 398
“...
(3) When deciding on an appeal [against a decision] a court may declare it inadmissible as being lodged out of time or as impermissible; dismiss it as unfounded; or accept it and reverse or quash it and remit the case for fresh examination.
...”
Article 480
“Compensation may be awarded to a person who
1. was detained but the criminal proceedings against him or her were never instituted or were terminated by a final decision; or [a person] who was acquitted by a final judgment or where the charges were dismissed by a final judgment.
...”
Section 19
“(1) Every legal entity and every natural person has the right to respect for their personal integrity under the conditions prescribed by this Act.
(2) The right to respect for one’s personal integrity within the meaning of this Act includes the right to life, physical and mental health, good reputation and honour, the right to be respected, the right to respect for one’s name and privacy of personal and family life, freedom et alia.
...”
Section 1046
“Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one’s personal dignity (non-pecuniary damage).”
“A person intending to bring a civil suit against the Republic of Croatia shall first submit a request for a settlement to the competent State Attorney’s Office.
...
Where the request has been refused or no decision has been taken within three months of its submission, the person concerned may file an action with the competent court.
...”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.”
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
1. The parties’ arguments
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
“(i) Recapitulation of the relevant principles
72. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, inter alia, Erkalo v. the Netherlands, 2 September 1998, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VI; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 54, Reports 1998 VII; and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 67, ECHR 2008 ...). The Court must further ascertain in this connection whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein, notably the principle of legal certainty (compare Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2000 III; Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000 IX; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007).
(α) Principles governing the examination of compliance with domestic law
73. Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see, inter alia, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996 III; Baranowski, cited above, § 50; Ječius, cited above, § 68; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 47, ECHR 2008 ... (extracts)).
74. However, the Court has clarified, particularly in its more recent case-law, that not every fault discovered in a detention order renders the underlying detention as such unlawful for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. A period of detention is, in principle, “lawful” if it is based on a court order. A subsequent finding of a superior domestic court that a lower court erred under domestic law in making the order will not necessarily retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention (see, inter alia, Benham, cited above, § 42; Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 31464/96, § 45, 4 August 1999; Minjat v. Switzerland, no. 38223/97, § 41, 28 October 2003; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 128, ECHR 2005 X (extracts)).
75. In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders – for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) – and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.). A detention order must be considered as ex facie invalid if the flaw in the order amounted to a “gross and obvious irregularity” in the exceptional sense indicated by the Court’s case-law (compare Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007 ... (extracts); and Marturana, cited above, § 79). Accordingly, unless they constitute a gross and obvious irregularity, defects in a detention order may be remedied by the domestic appeal courts in the course of judicial review proceedings.
(β) The required quality of domestic law
76. The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein. On this last point, the Court stresses that, where deprivation of liberty is concerned, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be satisfied (see Baranowski, cited above, §§ 51-52; Ječius, cited above, § 56; and Khudoyorov, cited above, § 125). In laying down that any deprivation of liberty must be “lawful” and be effected “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, Article 5 § 1 does not merely refer back to domestic law; like the expressions “in accordance with the law” and “prescribed by law” in the second paragraphs of Articles 8 to 11, it also relates to the “quality of the law”, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the Articles of the Convention. “Quality of the law” in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996 III; and Nasrulloyev, cited above, § 71).
(γ) Principles governing the notion of arbitrary detention
77. No detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1, the notion of “arbitrariness” in this context extending beyond the lack of conformity with national law. As a consequence, a deprivation of liberty which is lawful under domestic law can still be arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention. While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis. It is moreover clear from the case-law that the notion of arbitrariness in the context of Article 5 varies to a certain extent depending on the type of detention involved (see Saadi, cited above, §§ 67-68).
78. One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (compare Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111; and Saadi, cited above, § 69) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham, cited above, § 47; Liu, cited above, § 82; and Marturana, cited above, § 80).
79. Furthermore, in the context of sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 § 1, the reasoning of the decision ordering detention is a relevant factor in determining whether a person’s detention must be considered as arbitrary. The Court has considered the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time to be incompatible with the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 70, 2 March 2006; and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007). Conversely, it has found that an applicant’s detention could not be said to have been arbitrary if the domestic court gave certain grounds justifying the continued detention on remand (compare Khudoyorov, cited above, § 131), unless the reasons given are extremely laconic and without reference to any legal provision which would have permitted the applicant’s detention (compare Khudoyorov, cited above, § 157).
80. Moreover, the Court has acknowledged notably in the context of sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) of Article 5 § 1 that the speed with which the domestic courts replaced a detention order which had either expired or had been found to be defective is a further relevant element in assessing whether a person’s detention must be considered arbitrary. Thus, the Court considered in the context of sub-paragraph (c) that a period of less than a month between the expiry of the initial detention order and the issuing of a fresh, reasoned detention order following a remittal of the case from the appeal court to a lower court did not render the applicant’s detention arbitrary (see Minjat, cited above, §§ 46 and 48). In contrast, a period of more than a year following a remittal from a court of appeal to a court of lower instance, in which the applicant remained in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds for his detention on remand, combined with the lack of a time-limit for the lower court to re-examine his detention, was found to render the applicant’s detention arbitrary (see Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 136-37).
81. In the context of sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1, the Court considered that an interval of two weeks between the expiry of the earlier order of detention in a psychiatric hospital and the making of the succeeding renewal order could in no way be regarded as unreasonable or excessive so that this delay did not involve an arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 49, Series A no. 33). In contrast, a delay of eighty-two days between the expiry of the initial order of detention in a psychiatric institution and its renewal and the lack of adequate safeguards to ensure that the applicant’s detention would not be unreasonably delayed was found to be inconsistent with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 to protect individuals from arbitrary detention (see Erkalo, cited above, §§ 57-60 in respect of both sub-paragraphs (a) and (e) of Article 5 § 1).”
(b) Application of these principles in the present case
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 5 § 4
“4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
1. The parties’ arguments
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(b) Application of these principles in the present case
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts which are to be converted into Croatian kuna at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,540 (two thousand five hundred and forty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 July 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President