CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juin 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 19 June 2000 Olivieira v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 33129/96 Decision 6.6.2000 [Section I] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement Municipal order prohibiting drug addicts from entering specified area for fourteen days: admissible [This summary also covers the decision of the case Landvreugd v. the Netherlands (dec.) , no. 37331/97, 6 June 2000] The Burgomaster of Amsterdam, relying on the Municipality Act and his power to preserve public order in exceptional circumstances, imposed prohibition orders on both applicants to the effect that they were not allowed for a period of fourteen days to enter specific areas of the town by reason of their reprehensible behaviour in relation to drugs in these areas. They were ordered to leave these areas for eight hours on four occasions and were expressly warned by the police that if they commited any similar reprehensible acts again in the near future, the Burgomaster would be asked to impose on them prohibition orders for fourteen days, as practice permitted it after the fifth eight-hour order. Despite this warning, the applicants carried on using hard drugs openly in the specified areas;   they were accordingly ordered to leave the areas for eight hours once more and the police requested then the intervention of the Burgomaster. The applicants unsuccessfully filed an objection with the Burgomaster against the fourteen-day prohibition orders and their further legal actions were to no avail. Admissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 8 of the Convention. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The formal classification under Netherlands law did not place prohibition orders such as the ones imposed in the present cases within the sphere of criminal law. Moreover, the purely preventive nature of the measures concerned was not affected by the fact that the applicants’ actions could have led to criminal prosecution. As to the severity of the measures, a comparison could be drawn with the Raimondo case (judgment of 22 February 1994); the constraints imposed on him were more severe than those imposed on the applicants in the present cases. Taking into consideration these elements, the proceedings in the present cases did not involve the determination of criminal charges: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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