CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juillet 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. 132 July 2010 Gatt v. Malta - 28221/08 Judgment 27.7.2010 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1-b Non-compliance with court order Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law Disproportionate detention for failure to pay amount due for breach of bail conditions: violation   Facts –The applicant, who had been charged with drug-trafficking, was granted bail subject to his providing a personal guarantee of approximately EUR   23,000 and with restrictions on his leaving his place of residence. Following a complaint that he had breached his curfew, the criminal court revoked his bail, and ordered his arrest and the payment of the guarantee. As he was unable to pay, proceedings were brought under Articles   585 and   586 of the Criminal Code and the guaranteed sum was converted into detention at the rate of one day per EUR   11.50. In total, this amounted to two thousand days’ (more than five years and six months’) imprisonment. The applicant brought a constitutional complaint which was ultimately dismissed. Law – Article 5 § 1 (b): In so far as the Government had claimed that the detention in the applicant’s case fell under the first limb of Article   5 §   1   (b), the Court held that in such circumstances issues such as the purpose of the court order, the feasibility of complying with it and the duration of the detention were matters to be taken into consideration. Moreover, proportionality assumed particular significance in the overall scheme of things. The Court considered that the applicant, who had been under strict bail conditions for nearly five years – presumably without being able to earn a living – could not realistically have been expected to comply with the court order to secure payment in the amount due. Bearing in mind the relatively shorter periods of detention in other similar cases it had examined previously, the Court found that the duration of the detention imposed for a single breach of curfew could not be considered to have struck a fair balance between the importance of securing compliance with a lawful court order and the importance of the applicant’s right to liberty. In so far as the Government claimed that the detention fell within the second limb of Article   5 §   1   (b) of the Convention, the Court found that Maltese law and its application in the applicant’s case had been deficient in two aspects. Firstly, the law had made no distinction between a breach of bail conditions related to the primary purpose of bail (namely, appearance at the trial) and other considerations of a less serious nature, such as a curfew. Secondly, it had not applied a ceiling on the duration of the detention, or made any assessment of proportionality. In sum, the domestic law as applied in the applicant’s case had failed to strike a balance between the importance in a democratic society of securing the fulfilment of the obligation in question and the importance of the right to liberty. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Reserved. Given the nature of the violation, the respondent State should give consideration to securing the applicant’s immediate release from detention in so far as it is based on the criminal court’s decision applying Articles   585 and   586 of the Criminal Code.   © 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