CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 avril 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 }   328 21.04.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   TWO CHAMBER JUDGMENTS AGAINST MALTA: STEPHENS v. MALTA (No 1) and STEPHENS v. MALTA (No 2)       STEPHENS v. MALTA (No 1)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Stephens v. Malta (No 1) (application no. 11956/07).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been:   a violation of Article 5§1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of Mr Stephens having been detained unlawfully for ten days after his arrest order had been declared unlawful; no violation of Article 5§4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), in the present case as regards lack of appeal rights, given that he could have lodged an unlimited number of applications for release while in detention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mark Charles Stephens, is a British national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Malta.   The case concerned Mr Stephen’s complaint about him having been detained in Spain on the basis of an unlawful order issued in Malta, and about not being able to appeal against judicial decisions concerning the lawfulness of his detention.   On 5 August 2004 Mr Stephens was arrested in Spain following a request for his extradition by the Maltese authorities. The arrest warrant was issued on the basis of the suspicion that he had conspired with others in Spain to transport drugs to Malta.   While detained in Spain, in October 2004, Mr Stephens brought proceedings in Malta, before the Court of Magistrates and before the Civil Court (constitutional jurisdiction), respectively. He claimed that his arrest warrant had been unlawful, because the court issuing it had not been competent to do so, that Malta did not have jurisdiction to try him, and that he could not appeal against a court decision refusing his release. The Court of Magistrates dismissed his claims. The Civil Court upheld them partly finding, in a decision of 12 November 2004, that the arrest order was unlawful as the court which had issued it was not competent to do so, ordered that compensation be paid to Mr Stephens and that he be released. At the same time the Civil Court held that, in accordance with domestic law, Malta had jurisdiction to try him even if the crime had been committed outside of its borders.   On the same day the Civil Court delivered its judgment, Mr Stephens appealed to the Maltese Constitutional Court claiming that his arrest in Spain had been unlawful as Malta lacked jurisdiction to try him. He also complained that the compensation he received was too low given the time he had spent in detention.   On the same day, the Spanish Government was informed by the Maltese authorities that the arrest warrant had been declared unlawful, but that the decision was not final until the appeal procedure – yet to be lodged – was completed. Allegedly, Mr Stephens’ lawyer applied for the applicant’s release, but on 16 November 2004, a Spanish court decided against it.   On 23 November 2004, the Maltese Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in respect of Mr Stephens’ complaints. It annulled the Civil Court’s judgment ordering his release, as it found that where a person was not detained in Malta, his release could not be ordered by Maltese courts. It held it was not competent to decide on the question of jurisdiction as that was a matter for the criminal courts. It upheld, however, the first instance court's finding that the arrest warrant was unlawful, and thus in violation of Article 5§1 of the Convention, as the court which had issued it had not been competent to do so. Lastly, the Constitutional Court confirmed the compensation granted to Mr Stephens by the Civil Court.     Mr Stephens was released on bail on 22 November 2004, and rearrested by the Spanish authorities on 1 December 2004 on the basis of a new request by Malta but as a continuation of the previous extradition proceedings. On 9 September 2005, he was extradited to Malta to stand trial. The domestic courts held that they had jurisdiction over the facts for which Mr Stephens was accused and found him guilty as charged. He has been in prison since January 2008.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 December 2004 and its admissibility and merits were examined together on 31 March 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanno Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Milovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Paivi Hirvela (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojsa Vucinic (Montenegro), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 7 (no punishment without law), Mr Stephens complained among other things of having been arrested unlawfully, of not being able to appeal against judicial decisions concerning his request for release, and of not having had an effective remedy for his complaints.   Decision of the Court   Jurisdiction of Malta   The Court considered necessary to examine the question of whether Malta had jurisdiction in respect of the complaints under Article 5. It found that Mr Stephens had been detained as a direct result of the arrest order issued by the Maltese authorities. The Court held accordingly that it had jurisdiction to examine the case against Malta, given that Mr Stephens’ detention had been instigated by Malta on the basis of its domestic law, and had been effected by Spain only as a result of its international agreements with Malta. Therefore, the responsibility for Mr Stephens’ detention had to be attributed to Malta irrespective of the fact that it had been executed in Spain.   Article 5§1 (detention between 5 August and 12 November 2004)   The Court held that Mr Stephens’ complaint in respect of that period was inadmissible. On the one hand, he had no longer the status of a victim in relation to this part of his complaint given that the national courts had already found a violation of Article 5§1 as the arrest order had been issued by a court not competent to do so. On the other hand, the offence of which Mr Stephens had been accused had been prosecutable under Maltese law, and the Maltese courts’ interpretation of the facts had been consistent with well established domestic practice.   Article 5§1 (detention between 12 November 2004 and 22 November 2004, following the Civil Court’s judgment)   As regards the responsibility of Malta, the Court held that Malta had also been responsible for the further ten days detention, following the Maltese Civil Court’s judgment. The same reasons, on the basis of which the Maltese courts had found a violation of Article 5§1 in respect of the initial period of detention, had been applicable in respect of the additional ten days detention.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 5§1 (c) in respect of this period, as Mr Stephens had continued to be detained despite that his arrest order had been declared unlawful as it had been issued by a court not competent to do so.   Article 5§4   The Court held that there had been no violation of this Article in particular because Mr Stephens could have challenged his detention before the courts an unlimited number of times, even if he could not have appealed against a decision refusing his release.   Article 7   The Court dismissed Mr Stephens’ complaint under this Article recalling that it applied only in respect of prosecution, conviction and punishment, and was, therefore, not applicable to Mr Stephens’ case, since the instant case dealt with pre-trial detention.     Judge Bratza expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***       STEPHENS v. MALTA (No 2)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [3] in the case of Stephens v. Malta (No 2) (application no. 33740/06).   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been:   no violation of Article 5§3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as both parties had been heard by the court which had not been obliged to decide on the issue of jurisdiction at the very first hearing at which Mr Stephens appeared before it;   and by six votes to one that there had been:   no violation of Article 5§4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), as the ten days which the court took to decide on the lawfulness of detention was sufficiently fast.   The judgment is available only in English.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mark Stephens, is a British national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Malta.   The case concerned Mr Stephens’s complaint that the domestic courts did not address the issues raised by his lawyer, in particular whether Malta had jurisdiction to try him, when challenging the lawfulness of his arrest on suspicion of drug trafficking, and failed to review speedily the lawfulness of his detention.   On 30 November 2004, Mr Stephens was arrested in Spain following a request for his extradition made by the Maltese authorities. The arrest warrant was issued on the basis of the suspicion that he had conspired with others in Spain to transport drugs to Malta. This was a second arrest warrant in continuation of the extradition proceedings previously started as a result of an earlier arrest warrant issued by the Maltese authorities some time before 5 August 2004.   On 9 September 2005, Mr Stephens was extradited to Malta to stand trial on charges of drug trafficking.   On 10 September 2005, Mr Stephens stood before the Court of Magistrates and challenged the legality of his arrest warrant, contested Malta’s jurisdiction to try him, and claimed that the facts he was accused of did not constitute a criminal offence in Malta. The Court of Magistrates held that the question of legality of the arrest warrant had been decided upon in earlier proceedings before the Maltese courts while Mr Stephens was still in Spain.   On 3 October 2005, Mr Stephens applied to the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. He claimed that the Court of Magistrates had failed to assess the lawfulness of his arrest by refusing to decide on his lawyer’s arguments challenging Malta’s jurisdiction and alleging that the facts were not punishable in Malta; he asked the Civil Court to declare his detention unlawful and to order his release. The Civil Court rejected Mr Stephens’ claims, following which he appealed to the Constitutional Court reiterating his allegations.   On 14 February 2006, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 5§4 of the Convention, as it considered that the Court of Magistrates had not pronounced itself on the question of jurisdiction at a hearing it held on 29 September 2004, and had thus disregarded its duty to determine the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. As a result, the case was sent for a new examination to the Court of Magistrates and Mr Stephens was awarded compensation for the violation found.   On 23 February 2006, the Court of Magistrates held in a decision that Malta had jurisdiction to try the applicant and committed Mr Stephens for trial.   In a judgment of 18 July 2007, confirmed by the Criminal Court of Appeal on 18 January 2008, Mr Stephens was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to a term in prison.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 August 2006 and its admissibility and merits were examined together on 31 March 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanno Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Milovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Paivi Hirvela (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojsa Vucinic (Montenegro), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [4]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Articles 5§§3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Stephens complained that the domestic courts repeatedly failed to address the issues raised by his lawyer when challenging the lawfulness of his arrest on suspicion of drug trafficking, and failed to review speedily the lawfulness of his detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 5§3   The Court noted that Mr Stephens had been brought promptly before the Court of Magistrates. At the hearing of 10 September 2005, he complained of the quality of the review of the lawfulness of his detention, in particular that the Court of Magistrates had failed to deal with the issue of jurisdiction during that hearing. While it was undisputed that jurisdiction was an important issue, as it formed the basis of the criminal proceedings, the Court found that, given the complexity of the question of jurisdiction, the Court of Magistrates could not have been reproached for not having examined it at the very first appearance of Mr Stephens before it. On the contrary, the Court considered it more appropriate for this question to have been examined at a later stage of the proceedings. At the hearing of 10 September 2005 both parties had been heard and the Court of Magistrates had satisfied itself that the arrest had been justified. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 5§3.   Article 5§4   The Court limited its examination under this Article to the question of whether by having sent the case for a fresh examination to the Court of Magistrates, the Constitutional Court had failed to provide a speedy and efficient review of the lawfulness of Mr Stephens’ detention. The Court recalled in this connection that the Constitutional Court had found a violation of Article 5§4 in its judgment of 14 February 2006 and had awarded compensation to Mr Stephens precisely because the Court of Magistrates had not ruled on the issue of jurisdiction on 29 September 2005. Accordingly, the applicant having lost victim status for that period of time, the period which remained to be decided upon by the Court had lasted 10 days: between 14 February 2006, when the case was sent for new examination, and 23 February 2006, when the issue of jurisdiction and hence the lawfulness of Mr Stephens’ detention had been decided by the Court of Magistrates.   In view of the complexity of the question of jurisdiction, the Court held that the lawfulness of Mr Stephens’ detention had been decided sufficiently promptly and there had been no violation of Article 5§4.   The Court observed, however, that the finding of no violation in this case had to be seen in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case, namely that Mr Stephens could not be considered to have been a victim in respect of the initial period of delay which had lasted more than four months. The Court emphasised that the present judgment did not change its findings in earlier case law that a constitutional complaint in Malta could not as such provide a speedy review of applicants’ detention.     Judge Bonello expressed a dissenting opinion, and Judge Bianku expressed a partly dissenting opinion, both of which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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. [3] 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. [4] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.