CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 avril 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. 107 April 2008 Rosengren v. Romania - 70786/01 Judgment 24.4.2008 [Section III] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement Length of a residence condition to which an accused was subject both during and after criminal proceedings: violation   Facts : The applicant was arrested in 1993 and remanded in custody in connection with fraud charges. In December 1995 and at his request a county court ordered his release from custody subject to the condition that he remain in Bucharest. He subsequently made a series of unsuccessful attempts to have that measure lifted. The criminal proceedings continued until October 2000, when they were discontinued under the statute of limitations. However, the residence condition remained in force until a further appeal by the applicant had been heard (and dismissed) by the Supreme Court of Justice in March 2002. Law : Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 – It was common ground that the prohibition on the applicant’s leaving Bucharest had interfered with his freedom of movement. That interference was in accordance with law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing crime and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. On the question of proportionality, however, it was noted that the measure had been in force for six years and three months, a period which in itself could constitute a violation and which had continued for approximately seventeen months after the charges against the applicant had become time-barred. Further, the domestic courts had not given relevant reasons for taking or prolonging the measure, despite repeated challenges by the applicant. The authorities had thus failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the applicant’s rights. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 3,000 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