CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 184 April 2015 François v. France - 26690/11 Judgment 23.4.2015 [Section V] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Lawyer carrying out professional duties taken into police custody as a result of altercation with police officer: violation Facts – On the night of 31 December 2002 the applicant, a lawyer, was called to the police station to assist a minor who had been taken into police custody. After a meeting with his client, who claimed to have been a victim of police violence and had sustained injuries to his face, the applicant drafted written observations which he wished to add to the file, also requesting that his client undergo a medical examination. These requests led to an altercation between the applicant and the custody officer on duty, C.Z., who claimed that the applicant had tried to hit her. C.Z. then decided to arrest him in flagrante delicto and took him into police custody. The applicant was immediately taken to a cell where various items were taken from him, including his briefcase and shoelaces, and he was subjected to a full-body search, being ordered to undress completely, and then to bend over and cough. On the police officer’s instruction he also underwent a blood alcohol test, which proved negative. In total, the applicant was in police custody for about 13   hours. A complaint filed by C.Z. was not taken further and the applicant’s actions were dismissed. Law – Article 5 § 1: The combination of two circumstances in this case was of some significance. First, the applicant had gone to the police station as a lawyer to assist a minor in police custody who had allegedly been assaulted by the police; second, the custody officer who had then claimed personally to be a victim of the applicant’s behaviour had herself taken the decision to take him into police custody and to subject him not to mere frisking but to a full-body search and an alcohol test, neither of which had been justified by objective indications. While the custody officer had then called a colleague from a different branch and had informed her hierarchy, that was only after the full-body search and alcohol test. In addition, at the relevant time, there had been no regulations authorising a body search that went beyond mere frisking. The need for an alcohol test, even though prior to that the applicant had been assisting a client in the police station, could also be called into question, as there were no objective indications that he had committed an offence under the influence of alcohol. Neither the tension following the row, nor the fact that the events had taken place on New Year’s Eve, in addition to the negative result of the alcohol test, suggested the existence of such justification. Therefore, the fact of taking the applicant into police custody and subjecting him to such measures exceeded the security requirements and, by contrast, demonstrated an intention that was unconnected with the purpose of police custody. Consequently, the applicant’s placement in police custody had been neither justified nor proportionate and the deprivation of his liberty had not been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §   1   (c). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes