CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. September 1998 Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom - 24838/94 Judgment 23.9.1998 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law Article 5-1-c Criminal offence Arrest and detention of protesters for breach of the peace: no violation; violation   Article 5-1-b Non-compliance with court order Detention following refusal to be bound over: no violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF CASE Complaints under Articles 5 § 3, 6 § 2, 6 § 3 (b) and (c) and 13 of the Convention not pursued – complaint under Article 11 does not raise any separate issue. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaints (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Arrests and initial detention of each applicant Breach of the peace constitutes “offence” under Article 5 § 1 (c). Expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” stipulate full compliance with national law, consistency with purpose of Article 5 and that national law be formulated with sufficient precision to allow citizen reasonably to foresee consequences of actions – concept of breach of the peace and relevant legal rules formulated with sufficient precision to satisfy this requirement. National courts which dealt with cases of first and second applicants satisfied that each had caused or been likely to cause breach of the peace – Court sees no reason to disagree – arrests and initial detention of first and second applicants complied with English law. Protest of third, fourth and fifth applicants entirely peaceful – Court not satisfied that police justified in fearing breach of the peace – in the absence of national decision, Court finds arrests and detention of third, fourth and fifth applicants failed to comply with English law. Conclusion : no violation in respect of arrest and initial detention of first applicant (seven votes to two); no violation in respect of arrest and initial detention of second applicant (unanimously); violation in respect of third, fourth and fifth applicants (unanimously). B.   Detention of first and second applicants following refusal to be bound over Detention for refusing to comply with order to be bound over within scope of Article 5 § 1 (b) – national law formulated with sufficient precision – given context, binding-over orders sufficiently clear. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 5 § 5 OF THE CONVENTION Not applicable in cases of first and second applicants since no breach of Article 5 § 1. Third, fourth and fifth applicants could have brought civil action against police. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 6 § 3 (a) OF THE CONVENTION Sufficient details given to first and second applicants in charge-sheets. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Interference Protests, including those of the first and second applicants who physically impeded the activities of which they disapproved, constituted expressions of opinion within meaning of Article 10 – impugned measures therefore amounted to interferences with Article 10 rights. B.   “Prescribed by law” This requirement similar to that under Article 5 § 1 that measures be “lawful” – in view of Court’s findings under Article 5 § 1, measures taken against first and second applicants were prescribed by law, whereas those taken against third, fourth and fifth applicants were not. C.   Legitimate aim Each applicant’s arrest and initial detention pursued aims of preventing disorder and protecting rights of others. Detention of first and second applicants for refusing to be bound over pursued, in addition, aim of maintaining authority of judiciary. D.   “Necessary in a democratic society” Given dangers and risk of disorder inherent in first and second applicants’ protest activities, actions of police in arresting and detaining them before bringing them to court not disproportionate – neither was their imprisonment following refusal to be bound over, given importance of deterrence and maintaining authority of judiciary. Measures taken against third, fourth and fifth applicants disproportionate, since their protest entirely peaceful. Conclusion : no violation in respect of first applicant (five votes to four); no violation in respect of second applicant (unanimously); violation in respect of third, fourth and fifth applicants (unanimously). VI.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: third, fourth and fifth applicants awarded compensation. B.   Costs and expenses: awarded to third, fourth and fifth applicants on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to third, fourth and fifth applicants (unanimously).   © 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