CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 décembre 2002

.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 48 December 2002 Nowicka v. Poland - 30218/96 Judgment 3.12.2002 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-1-b Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law Detention for purpose of psychiatric examination in context of private prosecution for defamation: violation Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Restrictions on family visits to detainee: violation Facts : A private prosecution was brought against the applicant for defamation. The court ordered that she undergo a psychiatric examination and, when she failed to comply, issued an arrest warrant. The applicant was arrested on 25 October 1994 and was released on 3     November 1994, the day after her examination. The court then ordered a further examination. The applicant again failed to comply and was arrested on 23 March 1995. She was examined between 19 April and 26 May and released on 3 June 1995. During her detention, visits from family members were restricted to one per month. Law : Article 5 § 1 (b) – While the applicant’s detention was “lawful”, the psychiatric examinations were preceded by eight and twenty seven days’ detention respectively, which could not be reconciled with the authorities’ desire to secure the immediate fulfilment of the applicant’s obligation to undergo the examinations. The authorities thus failed to draw an appropriate balance. Moreover, the continued detention of the applicant after completion of the examinations had no basis under Article 5 § 1 (b). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 8 – Although the detention itself could be considered to pursue the legitimate aims of the prevention of crime and the protection of health and rights of others, the restriction of the applicant’s visiting rights did not pursue, and was not proportionate to, any legitimate aim. The applicant was held in detention for a total of eighty three days in a case in which she did not contest the private prosecutor’s submissions on the facts of the case against her and the Government had not shown that the restriction was justified as a normal consequence of prison life and discipline during detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 € 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