CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 65 June 2004 Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland - 40905/98 Judgment 8.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention in police custody for drunkenness and disorderly conduct: violation Facts : The applicant was arrested and held on remand in police custody on six occasions between 1988 and 1992. The first time she was taken to a police station by two taxi drivers since she had refused to pay them. On four other occasions the applicant arrived voluntarily at the same police station, apparently without any purpose, and in a very drunken state. The last incident of detention occurred when the police were called by a hotel complaining about the applicant. On each of the six occasions the applicant spent the night in a cell and was released the following morning. According to the police reports drawn up, the reasons for her detention on every occasion had been her state of intoxication, agitation and aggressive behaviour towards the policemen. The applicant filed complaints against various police officers, but the prosecution authorities did not consider there were grounds for ordering an investigation. She then instituted civil proceedings against the State, claiming compensation for having been unlawfully arrested by the police. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, finding there had been sufficient reasons and a legal basis for the successive detentions. Law : Article 5 § 1 – It was not disputed that each of the applicant’s confinements by the police to detention in a cell had amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The detentions were covered by Article   5 § 1, given that the applicant’s conduct and behaviour had been under the strong influence of alcohol and could reasonably have been considered to entail a threat to public order. As to the lawfulness of the detentions, the Court was satisfied they had conformed to national substantive and procedural rules. However, concerning the quality of the rules in question, the provisions relied on by the Government were not precise as to the type measures that the police were authorised to take in respect of a detainee, nor did they address the maximum authorised duration of detention. Whilst the Police Instructions invoked by the authorities did contain more detailed rules on the discretion which a police officer enjoyed in ordering detention, the instructions did not permit detention in cases of mere intoxication if an alternative measure could be used. Moreover, the Court was not satisfied that such Police Instructions had been made accessible to the public. Hence, the exercise of discretion by the police and the duration of the detention had been governed by administrative practice alone, not by a legal framework. For these reasons, the Court was not satisfied that the law, as applicable at the material time, was sufficiently precise and accessible to avoid all risk of arbitrariness. Accordingly, the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had not been “lawful”. Conclusion : violation (5 votes to 2). Article 41 – The finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.   © 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