CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 150 March 2012 Mannai v. Italy   - 9961/10 Judgment 27.3.2012 [Section II] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Hinder the exercise of the right of petition: violation   Facts – The applicant is a Tunisian national who lives in Tunisia. In May 2005 the Italian authorities issued a warrant for his arrest on suspicion of his involvement in a criminal conspiracy linked to fundamentalist Islamist groups. He was arrested in Austria in May 2005 and extradited to Italy in July 2005. In October 2006 he was found guilty and sentenced to approximately five years’ imprisonment. The judgment specified that he was to be deported from Italy after serving his sentence. On 19 February 2010, at the applicant’s request, the Court indicated to the Italian Government, under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, that it was advisable for the applicant not to be deported to Tunisia until further notice. The Court also drew attention to the fact that failure to comply with that measure could give rise to a violation of Article   34 of the Convention. After being granted a remission, the applicant finished serving his sentence on 20   February 2010. On the same day, the prefect issued an order for his deportation. The applicant was deported to Tunisia on 1   May 2010. In reply to a letter of 3   May 2010 from the Court, the Italian Government stated that the applicant had been deported because he represented a threat to national security. The applicant also alleged that he had been arrested on arriving in Tunisia and had been tortured by the police while in detention, although this was disputed by the Italian Government. Proceedings were still pending in the Court of Cassation on the date of the judgment. Law – Article 3: The applicant had been deported to Tunisia, where he had faced a risk of ill-treatment at the material time. The enforcement of the order for his deportation had therefore breached Article   3 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 34: The applicant had been deported to a country that was not a party to the Convention, where he claimed that he would face the risk of treatment in breach of the Convention. His deportation had therefore at the very least rendered any finding of a violation of the Convention meaningless and had irreversibly weakened the level of protection of the rights set forth in Article   3. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant had been able to pursue the proceedings, since he currently enjoyed freedom of movement and was allowed to remain in contact with his lawyer, did not preclude an issue from arising under Article   34. The exercise of the rights enshrined in that Article had been hindered in that it was now more difficult for the applicant to avail himself of his right of application as a result of the respondent Government’s actions. In addition, before deporting the applicant, the respondent Government had not requested the discontinuation of the Rule   39 interim measure, which they had known to be still in force. The fact that the applicant had been removed from Italy’s jurisdiction therefore constituted a serious obstacle liable to prevent the Government from discharging their obligations to protect the applicant’s rights and to remedy the consequences of the violations found by the Court. This situation had hindered the applicant’s effective exercise of his right of individual application. Accordingly, by failing to comply with the interim measure, Italy had been in breach of its obligations under Article   34 of the Convention. 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