CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 novembre 2011

.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. 146 November 2011 Beiere v. Latvia - 30954/05 Judgment 29.11.2011 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-1-b Non-compliance with court order Detention for failure to comply with court order which the applicant was never informed about: violation   Facts – After a municipality official lodged a defamation claim against the applicant, criminal proceedings were instituted against her and a lawyer was appointed to represent her, although she claims she was never informed of that appointment. After hearing representations from the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer and noting that the applicant had refused to submit to a residential psychiatric examination voluntarily, a judge ordered her placement in a psychiatric hospital. Several days later the applicant was escorted by the police to the hospital, where she was for the first time informed of the existence of the court order. Her appeal against the order was unsuccessful and she was kept in the hospital for about twenty days. The criminal proceedings against her were ultimately discontinued in view of her mental incapacity. Law – Article 5 § 1 (b): The Government had argued that the applicant’s detention had been justified by her failure to comply with a lawful court order. The Court noted, however, that the applicant was informed of the existence of a court order only after she had been brought to the psychiatric hospital and was therefore never given a chance to comply voluntarily. Moreover, while it remained unclear whether the applicant had been aware of the criminal charges against her, she was never informed that a lawyer had been appointed to represent her and did not meet him. The domestic court had ordered the applicant’s detention in her absence, without summoning her to a hearing or informing her that a hearing would take place. In such circumstances, the domestic proceedings had not offered the applicant sufficient protection against a potentially arbitrary deprivation of her liberty and the detention order issued in those proceedings could not be regarded as a “lawful order of a court” within the meaning of Article 5 §   1   (b). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 9,000 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