CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 novembre 2003

.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 56 September 2003 Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.) - 47244/99 Decision 4.11.2003 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1-b Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law Detention for refusing to show identity card to police: inadmissible The applicant was standing in front of his apartment building when two policemen requested that he show them his citizen’s card. As he refused to reveal his identity, he was taken to a police station, where he was searched and placed in a detention cell. He was released one hour later, when his identity had been checked by the police. The applicant complained to various authorities about having been detained unlawfully and filed a petition to the Constitutional Court. In several of these complaints he requested that two of his neighbours be heard, as he maintained that they had indicated his identity to the police when he had been arrested. The complaints were dismissed, as the applicant’s detention and search had been in accordance with the Police Corps Act. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1(b) – The applicant was under an obligation in domestic law to prove his identity and his detention therefore pursued the legitimate aim of securing the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law:   manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (fair hearing) – This provision is not applicable to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court: incompatible ratione materiae . Inadmissible under Article 6 § 3 (d) – The refusal of the prosecuting authorities to hear the persons who had witnessed the applicant’s arrest took place in the context of his complaints against the policemen, and Article 6 does not apply to such proceedings: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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