CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 janvier 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   005 8.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MANGOURAS v. SPAIN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mangouras v. Spain (application no. 12050/04). (The judgment is available only in French.)   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras, is a Greek national who was born in 1935 and lives in Greece.   He complained of the decision to remand him in custody on suspicion of offences including offences against natural resources and the environment.   Mr Mangouras was formerly the captain of the ship Prestige , which in November 2002, while sailing off the Spanish coast, released into the Atlantic Ocean the 70,000 tons of fuel oil it was carrying when the hull sprang a leak. The spillage caused an ecological catastrophe whose effects on marine flora and fauna lasted for several months and spread as far as the French coast.   A criminal investigation was opened and the applicant was remanded in custody with bail fixed at three million euros. The investigating judge said that, although the oil-spill had been accidental, some of the material in the file indicated irregularities in the applicant’s conduct, such as a lack of cooperation with the port authorities when they tried to take the vessel in tow.   The applicant lodged a number of appeals against the above decision, without success. The Spanish courts considered that the seriousness of the offences, the disquiet caused by the marine pollution, the applicant’s Greek nationality, the fact that his permanent address was abroad and the fact that he had no ties with Spain justified the high level of the security demanded. Mr Mangouras was detained for 83 days and released when his bail was paid by the Prestige ’s owner’s insurers, the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association.   The Spanish authorities later authorised the applicant’s return to his country of origin, where he is now living, on condition that the Greek authorities would enforce compliance with the periodic supervision to which the applicant was subject in Spain. That means that he must report every two weeks to the police station on the island of Icaria, where he was born, or in Athens, where his children live. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), judges , Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz (Spain) , ad hoc judge , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 5 § 3, the applicant alleged, among other complaints, that the amount of bail required was excessively high and had been fixed without regard for his personal situation.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 3   The Court could not disregard the growing and legitimate concern both in Europe and internationally about offences against the environment. It noted in that connection the States’ powers and obligations regarding the prevention of marine pollution and the unanimous determination among States and European and international organisations to identify those responsible, to ensure that they appeared to stand trial and to punish them.   In the present case the Court accepted that a high level of bail had been fixed. It observed, however, that bail had been paid by the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association. They were the insurers of the Prestige ’s owner, that is, the applicant’s employer, and the policy covered civil liability for damage arising from pollution attributable to the ship. Consequently, bail was paid in accordance with the contractual legal relation between the owner and his insurers.   After payment of the sum concerned the applicant had returned to Greece, where he reported regularly to the police. The proceedings were still pending at the investigation stage, and that system enabled the Spanish authorities to keep track of the applicant’s whereabouts on a permanent basis. However, the Court considered that account had to be taken of the particular circumstances of the case, namely the special nature of the offences committed in the context of a “hierarchy of responsibilities” specific to the law of the sea, which distinguished it from other cases in which it had had occasion to examine the length of pre-trial detention. It took the view that the seriousness of the natural catastrophe justified the Spanish courts’ concern to determine who was responsible for it, and that it was accordingly reasonable for them to try to ensure that the applicant would appear to stand trial by fixing a high level of bail.   Moreover, the Court observed that Mr Mangouras had been deprived of his liberty for a shorter period than in previous cases in which applicants had been remanded in custody with the possibility of being released on payment of bail.   It held that the amount of bail demanded, although high, had not been disproportionate, regard being had to the legal interest being protected, the seriousness of the offence and the catastrophic consequences, both environmental and economic, stemming from the spillage of the ship’s cargo. There had therefore been no violation of Article 5 § 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.