CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   734 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Lazoroski v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no. 4922/04 )   UNLAWFUL DETENTION IN POLICE CUSTODY   Violations of Article 5 § § 1(c) and 2 (right to liberty and security) Violation of 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   180 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Jovče Lazoroski, is a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” who was born in 1973 and lives in Kičevo.   On 6 August 2003 a high-ranking officer in the Intelligence Service gave a verbal order for the applicant's arrest on suspicion that he was armed and might leave the State. At 11.15 p.m. on the same day Mr Lazoroski was arrested by police near the Tabanovce border post with Serbia. He was taken to Tabanovce police station where he was detained until 9 a.m. on the following day.   During the night he spent in detention, the applicant signed a report in which he waived his right to a lawyer. No record of questioning was kept, however, Mr Lazoroski submitted that he was questioned about some members of the then opposition party and some high-profile journalists.   On 7 August 2003 Mr Lazoroski challenged the lawfulness of his arrest before the Ministry of the Interior and before an investigating judge at the Kumanovo Court of First Instance. On 26 January 2005, the investigating judge found that he had been lawfully deprived of his liberty on suspicion of arms trafficking. Mr Lazoroski’s appeal was dismissed in February 2005.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Articles 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3, and on Artile 6 § 1, Mr Lazoroski complained that he had been detained unlawfully; that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest; that his lawyer had been prevented from attending his interview, that the arrest had been carried out without a court order, and that he could not participate effectively in the proceedings challenging the lawfulness of his detention, and that those proceedings had been too long.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 January 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic) Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 5   The Court noted that the domestic judicial authorities had not provided any information about the alleged offence Mr   Lazoroski was suspected of, neither any evidence in support of his involvement. Given that there had been nothing to suggest that he had been involved in trafficking in arms, the Court held unanimously that his detention had not been based on reasonable suspicion and consequently had been unjustified, and in breach of Article   5   §   1   (c).   Furthermore, none of the reports submitted by the Government indicated that the applicant had been informed of the reasons for his arrest. No report had been drawn regarding his questioning while in police custody, and there had been no other evidence that Mr   Lazoroski had been given reasons for the arrest. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   2.   Article 6   Finally, as regards Mr Lazoroski’s claim that he could not participate in the proceedings, the Court noted that the evidence presented by the Ministry of Justice to the investigating judge deciding on the lawfulness of detention had not been shown to Mr Lazoroski. In addition, he had not been invited to attend the hearing before the judge who had decided on his claim. His complaints in this respect had been likewise left unanswered on appeal. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that Mr   Lazoroski had been prevented from effectively participating in the proceedings in breach of Article   6   §   1.   The Court found that the proceedings before the investigating judge concerning the lawfulness of Mr   Lazoroski’s detention, which had lasted one and a half year, had not been too long given that no particular diligence had been required as Mr   Lazoroski had been already released when he had lodged his claim.   The Court found that the remaining complaints were inadmissible and had to be therefore rejected.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70), or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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.