CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 février 2011

.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. 138 February 2011 Kharin v. Russia - 37345/03 Judgment 3.2.2011 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Overnight detention in sobering-up centre for aggressive behaviour in local shop: no violation   Facts – In the evening of 11 October 2001 the police received an emergency phone call from a local shop that a drunken man – the applicant – was shouting at the shop assistant and using offensive language. The police escorted the applicant from the shop, but he continued his unruly behaviour and attempted to start a fight with the police officers, waving his hands about and using offensive language. At approximately 10.30 p.m. the police took the applicant to the local sobering-up centre where a report was drawn up describing his manifestations of intoxication and violent behaviour. The applicant was released at 9.40 the following morning. He subsequently filed a complaint against the sobering-up centre claiming that his detention had been arbitrary. The district court concluded that the applicant’s demeanour – unsteady gait, incoherent speech, inability to stand upright and smell of alcohol – offended human dignity and public morals so that his detention had been justified. Law – Article 5 § 1 (e): Regard being had to the importance of the right to liberty in a democratic society, an individual’s detention could not be justified merely by an offensive physical appearance. That would be just a step away from introducing a system of compulsory confinement for any abnormal appearance which might by some be perceived as offensive or insulting. However, even though the reasoning of the domestic courts in that respect had been inexplicably inadequate, there was sufficient evidence before the Court to show that the main reason for the applicant’s detention had been his aggressive and offensive behaviour, which had caused a disturbance in a public place and posed a danger to others. Both the written statement of the shop assistant and the official police records indicated that the applicant had used offensive language and threats in the shop and tried to start a fight with the police officers. In such circumstances, the police had had no alternative but to detain the applicant overnight in a sobering-up centre, which they had done in full conformity with national substantive and procedural rules. Finally, by releasing the applicant immediately after he had sobered up and gone through the administrative formalities, the authorities had struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the need to safeguard public order and the interests of others and, on the other, the applicant’s right to liberty. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © 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