CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 avril 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 } 320 20.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Villa v. Italy (application no. 19675/06)   DELAY IN LIFTING A SECURITY MEASURE WHICH WAS INITIALLY JUSTIFIED FOUND CONTRARY TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT   Unanimously:   No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the application of the supervision order and its continuation until July 2005 and violation of that Article regarding the delay in notifying the lifting of the measure after 1 July 2005     Principal facts   The applicant, Roberto Villa, is an Italian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Milan (Italy). In July 1997 he was summoned to appear before the Milan magistrate for threatening to kill his father and wounding him with a knife. Doctors had found that Mr Villa, who was recognised as a 100% disabled civilian, suffered from chronic paranoid psychosis, had strong destructive tendencies and was a danger to society. In a judgment of 4 May 1999 which became final on 20 July 1999 the Milan magistrate found the applicant guilty, but made a finding of diminished responsibility and sentenced him to three months and 15 days’ imprisonment. As permitted by law (Law no. 689 of 1981), that sentence was replaced by a seven-month community sentence ( libertà controllata ) followed by a one-year supervision order ( libertà vigilata ).   Starting on 27 July 2000 the applicant first served the seven-month community sentence (entailing a prohibition on leaving Milan, a requirement to report daily to the police station, a ban on carrying weapons or explosives, suspension of his driving licence, confiscation of his passport and a requirement to carry a copy of the order setting out the terms of the community sentence). On 9 October 2001 the Milan judge responsible for the execution of sentences ruled that the applicant was still a danger to society – having, among other things, attacked and threatened doctors – and therefore decided to subject him to a one-year supervision order (requiring him to report once a month to the relevant police authority, to remain in contact with a psychiatric clinic, to reside in Milan at a specified address, not to leave the city, to remain at home between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and to carry a copy of the supervision order setting out its terms). Between November 2001 and December 2002 Mr   Villa was detained in Montelupo Fiorentino psychiatric hospital, before again being made subject to a supervision order and ordered to reside at his father’s home. That measure was extended several times until July 2005. On each occasion the Florence judge responsible for the execution of sentences found that the applicant continued to pose a danger to society, giving reasons for that finding. On 1 July 2005 the judge re-examined the file and took the view that Mr Villa was no longer a danger to society (he took account of the fact that the applicant was cooperating with a psychiatric clinic, was in work and had an improved relationship with his father). On the same day the judge decided to lift the supervision measure. However, that decision was not deposited with the registry until four months later, on 2 November 2005; it was served on the applicant on 7 November 2005.   Mr Villa subsequently sought compensation, without success, for the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings against him (including the period of application of the security measures).     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (freedom of movement) and Article   5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security), Mr Villa alleged that the period of application of the security measures imposed on him had been excessive and that the latter had been arbitrary in nature. He further contended that the excessive length of the proceedings against him, including the period of application of the security measures, had been in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Complaint concerning the length and allegedly arbitrary nature of the security measures (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 5 of the Convention)   First of all, the Court noted that Mr Villa had finished serving his community sentence in February 2001 and that his detention in the psychiatric hospital had ended in November   2002. He had then had six months in which to apply to the Court complaining of these measures (Article 35 § 1). However, his application had not been lodged until   2006. His allegations concerning these two measures had thus been submitted to the Court out of time; accordingly, they were declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and   4. The situation was different with regard to the supervision order to which Mr Villa had been subject until November 2005. The Court therefore examined the substance of his complaints in that regard, from the standpoint of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (the situation did not constitute a “deprivation of liberty” within the meaning of Article 5).   Measures such as supervision orders were justified only if they had a sufficient legal basis (which was not disputed in this case) and for as long as they furthered the aims they were supposed to pursue (in this instance, the maintenance of public order and the prevention of crime). The Court therefore had to ascertain whether this had been the case.   It pointed out that, where the measures in issue were imposed with reference to factors in relation to the person concerned that were susceptible to change over time, such as the danger posed by the applicant to society, it was incumbent on the State to review periodically whether the grounds for any restrictions on freedom of movement persisted. In Mr Villa’s case the Court took the view that this had been the case until 1 July 2005, when the necessity of keeping the supervision order in place was reviewed for the last time. The Court examined in particular the reasons advanced by the authorities for extending the duration of the impugned measure five times, and found no indication of arbitrariness.   The Court went on to observe that the Florence judge responsible for the execution of sentences had re-examined the file on 1 July 2005 and decided on that date to lift the supervision order. However, that decision had not been served on the applicant until four months later, on 7 November 2005. In the Court’s view, greater diligence and speed had been called for in the context of a decision affecting the applicant’s freedom of movement, in particular as the restrictions imposed on Mr Villa had already been extended for nine months. The interval of over four months between the hearing before the judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the actual lifting of the supervision measure had not been justified and had made the restrictions on the applicant’s freedom of movement disproportionate.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 on account of the delay in notifying the applicant of the decision to lift the supervision order after the hearing of 1   July   2005.   Complaint concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings overall (Article   6   §   1)   In view of its finding of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court considered that it had examined the main legal issue raised by the present application. It was therefore no longer necessary to rule separately on the applicant’s complaint under Article   6 of the Convention.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court could discern no link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage claimed by Mr Villa. It considered that its finding of a violation constituted sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.