CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 2008

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 108 May 2008 Ferla v. Poland - 55470/00 Judgment 20.5.2008 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Restrictions on contact before trial between a remand prisoner and his wife on the ground that she might be called as a prosecution witness: violation   Facts : The applicant was charged with the aggravated assault of a neighbour and detained pending trial. His wife said in statements to the police that she had not witnessed the incident and would not testify against her husband. During the eleven-month period leading up to the trial, she was allowed to visit him only once, her other requests being turned down on the grounds that she would be called as a witness for the prosecution. At the trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Law : Article 8 – The case turned on the issue of whether the measure was “necessary in a democratic society”. Initially the measure could be considered to have been necessary and reasonable despite the harsh consequences it had had on the applicant’s family life. However, the Court had to consider whether its continued application was compatible with Article   8. Although the applicant’s wife had stressed that she had no information to offer and had subsequently refused to testify, she had been allowed to visit the applicant only once. The authorities had not considered any alternative means, such as supervision by a prison officer or other restrictions on its nature, frequency and duration, of ensuring that the applicant’s contact with his wife would not lead to collusion or otherwise obstruct the process of taking evidence. Indeed, the authorities had not seen any obstacle to her visiting the applicant on the one occasion they had allowed her to do so. In the circumstances, and having regard to their duration and nature, the restrictions on the applicant’s contact with his wife went beyond what was necessary in a democratic society “to prevent disorder and crime” and failed to maintain a fair balance between the means employed and the aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 1,500 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