CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mai 2006

.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. 86 May 2006 Ambruszkiewicz v. Poland (dec.) - 38797/03 Judgment 4.5.2006 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention ordered without sufficient reasoning, no consideration given to less intrusive measures: violation   Facts : In 2002 the applicant was placed under judicial investigation for making false accusations about certain local police officers and judges to their superiors. He was summoned to appear before the district court and was remanded in custody for three months for obstructing the proceedings, as he had failed to reappear after an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant appealed against the detention order, arguing that the preventive measure taken was too severe and disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence of which he had been accused. The courts dismissed his appeal and rejected his subsequent applications for release on the ground that there was a risk that he might abscond and obstruct the proper progress of the proceedings. After two months and seven days in detention the applicant was released on bail following a further order by the court. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending before the Polish courts. Law : The Court noted that the applicant’s detention had a statutory basis in Polish law. In ordering that the applicant be placed and kept in detention, the authorities had referred, among other things, to the need to guarantee the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings and, more specifically, to the risk that the applicant might attempt to abscond. However, it was difficult to identify any evidence in support of the allegation that he might abscond: Mr   Ambruszkiewicz had been remanded in custody after the very first hearing in his case because he had left the courtroom without authorisation, and neither the complexity of the case nor his potential sentence would have made him more likely to abscond. Moreover, nothing in the applicant’s background had been cited which might suggest that he had been likely to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. Given that accusations had been made against certain police officers and judges in the region, the court dealing with the case had been under a particular obligation to act without showing any sign of bias. In addition, in spite of a number of applications lodged by the applicant’s counsel, the authorities had failed to consider applying any of the less intrusive measures available under Polish law. The Court therefore considered that the applicant’s detention could not be regarded as lawful within the meaning of Article   5(1) of the Convention. Conclusion : 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