CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mars 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   192 18.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LADENT v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ladent v. Poland (application no. 11036/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s detention on charges of slander; a violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the delay in releasing the applicant; a violation of Article 5 § 2 in that the applicant was not informed promptly, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him; and, a violation of Article 5 § 3 in that there had been no automatic judicial review of the applicant’s detention following his arrest.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Ladent 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   346 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Franck Ladent, is a French national who was born in 1972 and lives in Ferney-Voltaire (France). In March 2001 he married a Polish national. They have two children. They initially lived in Poland, but moved to France in July 2001.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about the unlawfulness of his detention in Poland on charges of slander.   In March 2001 an administrator of the building in which Mr Ladent and his wife lived brought private prosecution proceedings against the applicant for slander, alleging that he had shouted obscenities at him in Polish. It appeared that, following the applicant’s departure for France, Kraków–Śródmieście District Court sent him summonses in connection with those proceedings, which remained unanswered.     On 15 July 2002 the district court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody and issued a wanted notice. In October 2002 the court stayed the proceedings against the applicant on the ground that his abode was unknown.   On 3   January 2003 Mr Ladent, on his way home to France after having spent a holiday in Poland with his family, was arrested during a routine passport check at the border between Poland and Germany. He was questioned but could not understand what the officers said and refused to sign any documents. The applicant alleged that various requests he had made through his wife, such as contacting the French Embassy or providing him with an interpreter or a lawyer, were refused. Mr Ladent was remanded in custody.   On 9 January 2003 the applicant, who had been appointed a counsel, filed an application for release and appealed against the detention order. The counsel submitted, in particular, that following the applicant’s departure to France the district court had sent summonses to his former address in Poland and to another address where he had never lived. The counsel also argued that the applicant had not known about the criminal proceedings against him and had not been served with the private bill of indictment.   On 10 January 2003 the district court ordered the applicant’s release and banned him from leaving the country. The Międzyrzecz Detention Centre, where the applicant was detained, refused to execute that order as it had not received original documents but a facsimile. The applicant was ultimately released on 13   January 2003. He alleged that he had only learnt of the charges against him on that date.   On 17 January 2003 the district court lifted the ban on the applicant leaving the country.   In February 2003 a local MP from Kraków, Mr Z. Wassermann, wrote a letter to the President of Kraków Court of Appeal requesting explanations for the applicant’s arrest and detention. In a letter dated 28 February 2003, the President informed the MP that the applicant’s case had been thoroughly considered and had been placed under the Vice-President   of Kraków Regional Court’s administrative supervision. The President stated, in particular, that the principal error committed by the district court was the unfounded assumption that the applicant had tried to evade justice.   It appeared that Mr Ladent and his family returned to France in January 2003. The applicant was ultimately acquitted of the charges against him in January 2005.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 February 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Lech Garlicki (Polish), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 5, the applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1   Concerning Mr Ladent’s deprivation of liberty between 3 and 10 January 2003   The Court noted that Kraków–Śródmieście District Court had agreed with the submissions of the applicant’s counsel and replaced the detention order with non-custodial preventive measures. It also attached considerable importance to the statement of the President of Kraków Court of Appeal and observed that the Polish Government had even conceded that the district court had erred in finding that the applicant had been evading justice. The Court therefore concluded that the district court had failed to apply the relevant domestic legislation correctly and that the applicant’s detention had not been effected in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”.   Moreover, the Court found that the applicant’s detention had been arbitrary. The district court’s finding had been manifestly without foundation, as the applicant had not been duly notified of the proceedings against him. It considered that the detention order imposed on Mr   Ladent could not be considered a proportionate measure aimed at securing the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, considering in particular the petty nature of the offence he had allegedly committed.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1.   Concerning the delay in releasing Mr Ladent between 10 and 13 January 2003   The Court noted, in particular, that the administrative formalities concerning the applicant’s release could and should have been carried out more swiftly. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article   5 §   1.   Article 5 § 2   The Court found that Mr Ladent had not been informed promptly and in a language which he understood of the reasons for his arrest and the charges against him until his release, in violation of Article   5 § 2.   Article 5 § 3   The Court found that, following the applicant’s arrest on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, there was no automatic judicial review of his detention, in violation of Article   5 § 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.