CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 1997

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 No. December 1997 Raninen v. Finland - 20972/92 Judgment 16.12.1997 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Arrest and detention of military conscript objecting to military and substitute service: 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.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (NON-EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Government had not demonstrated that either a criminal prosecution or an action for damages would in specific circumstances have offered reasonable prospects of success. Conclusion : objection (six votes to three). II.   ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Article 5 § 1 Having regard to Ombudsman’s findings, applicant’s arrest and detention during his transportation by military police from prison to the barracks were to be considered contrary to national law and, accordingly, were not “lawful” under Article 5 § 1 – not established that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty following his arrival at the barracks in breach of that provision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Article 5 § 2 Having regard to above finding that applicant’s arrest failed to comply with Finnish law and thus gave rise to a breach of paragraph 1 of Article 5, not necessary to consider complaint under paragraph   2. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION Principles in Court’s case-law restated – as regards kind of treatment in question, handcuffing did not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 where measure imposed in connection with lawful arrest or detention and did not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what was reasonably considered necessary in circumstances – in this regard, it was of importance for instance whether reason to believe that person concerned would resist arrest or abscond, cause injury or damage or suppress evidence. Handcuffing of the applicant had not been made necessary by his conduct – apart from fact that measure had itself been unjustified, it had been imposed in context of unlawful arrest and detention – in addition, he had, albeit only briefly, been visible to the public on entering military police vehicle outside prison gate and had felt humiliated by appearing handcuffed in front of members of his support group – these considerations were no doubt relevant for the purposes of determining whether the contested treatment was “degrading” within meaning of Article   3. However, Court not convinced that incident had adversely affected applicant’s mental state – nothing in the evidence suggested that causal link existed between impugned treatment and his “undefined psychosocial problem” – allegation that the handcuffing aimed at debasing or humiliating him not made out – finally, not contended that handcuffing had affected him physically – not established that treatment in issue attained minimum level of severity required by Article   3. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION According to Court’s case-law, notion of “private life” was broad and not susceptible to exhaustive definition; it could, depending on the circumstances, cover the moral and physical integrity of the person – these aspects of the concept extended to situations of deprivation of liberty – not excluded that there might be circumstances in which Article 8 could be regarded as affording a protection in relation to conditions during detention which did not attain level of severity required by Article 3. Applicant’s complaint under Article 8 based on same facts as that under Article 3, which the Court had considered and found not established in essential aspects – insufficient elements to find that treatment complained of entailed such adverse effects on his physical or moral integrity as to constitute interference with respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 8. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage : compensation awarded on equitable basis (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses: awarded in part (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