CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 novembre 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 47 November 2002 Płoski v. Poland - 26761/95 Judgment 12.11.2002 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Refusal to allow remand prisoner to attend parents' funerals: violation Facts : While the applicant was in detention on remand on a charges of theft, both his parents died within a few weeks of each other. The applicant's requests to be allowed to attend their funerals were rejected on the ground that he was a habitual offender whose return could not be guaranteed. Law : Article 8 – The interference with the applicant's private and family life was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of the interests of public safety and the prevention of disorder or crime. However, the reasons given by the domestic authorities were not persuasive. In particular, the concern that the applicant might abscond could have been addressed by escorted leave, which was apparently not even considered although provided for by domestic law. Moreover, the charges did not involve violent crimes and the applicant could not be considered as a prisoner without any prospect of being released. Taking into account the seriousness of what was at stake, refusal of permission to attend the funerals could be justified only if there were compelling reasons and no alternative solution such as escorted leaves could be found. While Article 8 does not guarantee a detained person an unconditional right to attend a relative's funeral, in the particular circumstances of the case the refusals were not proportionate to the aims pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 1,500 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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