CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 mai 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. 97 May 2007 Custers, Deveaux and Turk v. Denmark - 11843/03 Judgment 3.5.2007 [Section V] Article 7 Article 7-1 Nullum crimen sine lege Conviction for entering defence area unmarked on official maps: no violation   Facts : At the relevant time, the applicants were members of Greenpeace. In 2001 the applicants took part in a campaign around the Thule Air Base aimed at drawing international attention to the Thule   Radar used by the American missile defence programme. They also wanted to collect information on the environmental impact of the air base. Before the action in question, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused Greenpeace permission to access the territory in question as this was considered a defence area. The applicants were eventually arrested, convicted of trespassing and sentenced to a fine. They appealed unsuccessfully. Law : The applicants had contested having known that the zone they had entered was a defence area. The air base had been marked with “No Entry” signposts by the normal access routes. The applicants had chosen, however, to enter it by landing at a place that was not included in the defence area. Walking from there, they had reached an emergency shelter which was situated at about 10 km distance from the air base and the radar and where they had been arrested. Moreover, the applicants indisputably had had the intention of approaching the radar and the air base. They had carefully planned their trip and used a GPS; the Greenpeace website had followed their progress along the way; and photos had been taken of the applicants holding banners with some of the air base military facilities in the background. Therefore, despite the fact that the air   base was not indicated on the official maps, they could not have been unaware that the area they had entered had not been “freely accessible” within the meaning of the Penal Code. Their act had amounted to an offence defined with sufficient clarity and foreseeability in Danish law. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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