CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 juillet 2007

.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. 99 July 2007 Kučera v. Slovakia - 48666/99 Judgment 17.7.2007 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for home Respect for private life Dawn raid of the applicant’s home by masked and armed police officers in order to notify charges – prison administration’s refusal to permit visits from his wife: violations   Facts : The applicant, a police department director, claimed that early one morning in December 1997 several armed police officers in masks had burst into his flat without his consent. He and his wife were shown a police investigator’s decision, accusing them and others of extortion. Criminal proceedings were brought against him and he was remanded in custody. He was not permitted to meet his wife until January 1999. His detention was extended several times, essentially on the ground that his release would jeopardise the investigation. He was eventually released in December 1999. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted the applicant and his wife in February 2001. Law : (a)     Entry into the apartment – In circumstances involving the daybreak intervention of masked police officers carrying submachine guns it was difficult to accept that any consent to their entry was free and informed. There had accordingly been interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home. That interference was disproportionate as there was no indication that the police had needed to enter the apartment in order to notify the charges and escort the applicant for questioning. Indeed, a risk of abuse of authority and violation of human dignity was inherent in a situation where the applicant was confronted by a number of specially trained masked police officers at his front door very early in the morning. Appropriate safeguards might have included regulatory measures to confine the use of special forces to situations where ordinary police intervention could not be regarded as safe and sufficient and procedural guarantees such as the presence of an impartial person during the operation or the obtaining of the owner’s clear, written consent as a pre-condition for entry. Accordingly, the intervention was not compatible with the applicant’s right to respect for his home. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Inability to meet his wife – While there had been a legitimate need for preventing the applicant from hampering the investigation, for example by exchanging information with his co-accused including his wife, the Court was not persuaded that it had been indispensable to refuse him visits from his wife for a period of 13 months. For instance, special visiting arrangements with supervision by an official could have been arranged. It was also questionable whether relevant and sufficient grounds existed for preventing the applicant from meeting with his wife for such a long period in view of the suffering caused by such a lengthy separation and the fact that the investigation had practically ended. The interference could not therefore be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found violations of Article   5 § 3 and Article   5 § 4 and no violation of Article   5 § 1. Article   41 – EUR 6,000 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