CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 décembre 2010

.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. 136 December 2010 Ichin and Others v. Ukraine - 28189/04 Judgment 21.12.2010 [Section V] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Arbitrary detention of minors in a juvenile holding facility: violation   Facts – The second and fourth applicants, minors at the material time, stole some food and kitchen appliances from a school canteen. They were questioned by the police and confessed to the theft. They also returned some of the stolen goods. A court ordered both boys to be placed in a juvenile holding facility as they were considered capable of committing socially dangerous acts, evading the investigation and interfering with the course of justice. They remained in detention for thirty days. The criminal proceedings against them were eventually terminated as they were under the age of criminal responsibility. Law – Article 5 § 1: The procedure for placement of a minor in a special holding facility was provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances of the present case, however, cast doubts as to whether the scope and manner of application of this procedure was sufficiently well-defined to avoid arbitrariness. The authorities had summoned the applicants as court witnesses in criminal proceedings against persons unknown, even though the identity of the offenders had been established by that time. The decision to detain them did not appear to be for any of the purposes listed in Article 5 §   1   (c). No investigative measures had been taken while the applicants had been detained, and the criminal proceedings against them had been started twenty days after their release although they could not be held criminally responsible given that they were under age. In addition, the juvenile holding facility where they had been placed could not be considered a place for “educational supervision” within the meaning of Article 5 §   1   (d), as it was an establishment for the temporary isolation of minors, including those who had committed an offence. It did not appear from the case materials that the applicants had participated in any educational activities during their stay there or that their detention had been related to any such purpose. Consequently, their detention had not fallen under the permissible exceptions of Article 5 §   1   (d) either. In sum, the applicants had been detained in an arbitrary manner. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 6,000 to each of the second and fourth applicants 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