CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 2000

.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 17 April 2000 Witold Litwa v. Poland - 26629/95 Judgment 4.4.2000 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention at sobering-up centre: violation Facts : The applicant, a partially-sighted pensioner, was apprehended by the police at a post office, where he was complaining that his post boxes had been opened and emptied. The police took him to a sobering-up centre, where he was detained for 6½ hours before being released. A form completed by the staff of the centre and signed by a doctor indicated that the applicant was moderately intoxicated on admission. The applicant requested the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, whom he accused of ill-treating him, and the centre staff. An investigation was opened but ultimately discontinued. He also brought an action for compensation, in which he further claimed that personal possessions had been stolen. The action was dismissed on the ground that his arrest had been justified and an appeal was rejected. Law : Article 5 § 1 (e) - The confinement amounted to a deprivation of liberty and the only ground invoked by the Government was "lawful detention of ... alcoholics". In interpreting that term, the Court looked to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In common usage, "alcoholic" denotes a person addicted to alcohol, but there is a link with the other categories in sub-paragraph (e), namely that they may be deprived of their liberty either in order to be given medical treatment or because of considerations dictated by social policy, or on both grounds, and it is legitimate to conclude that a predominant reason why the Convention allows their deprivation of liberty is not only that they are dangerous for public safety but also that their own interests necessitate their detention. This ratio legis indicates that the object of the provision cannot be to allow the detention only of "alcoholics" in the limited sense of the clinical state of alcoholism: persons who have not been medically diagnosed as alcoholics, but whose conduct under the influence of alcohol nevertheless poses a threat to public order or to themselves, can therefore be taken into custody. This does not mean that the detention of an individual merely because of alcohol intake is permitted, but there is nothing to suggest that Article 5 § 1 (e) prevents the detention of an individual abusing alcohol in order to limit the harm to himself and the public. This interpretation is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires , which included reference to "drunkenness". The applicant's detention therefore fell within the ambit of this provision. As to whether it was "lawful" and free from arbitrariness, it is undisputed that the procedure laid down in Polish law was followed and the detention therefore had a legal basis in Polish law. However, the Court had serious doubts as to whether it could be said that the applicant had behaved in such a way that he posed a threat to the public or himself and these doubts were reinforced by the rather trivial factual basis for the detention, as well as the applicant's blindness. No consideration appears to have been given to the less extreme measures which the law allows to be applied to intoxicated persons and which do not necessitate a deprivation of liberty. In the absence of such consideration, the applicant's detention cannot be considered "lawful". Conclusion : violation (6 votes to 1). Article 41 - The Court dismissed the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage, since he had failed to reclaim his possessions from the domestic authorities. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded the applicant 8,000 zlotys (PLN). It also made an award in respect of costs.   © 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