CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 juillet 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 586 27.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Gatt v. Malta (application no. 28221/08)     2000 DAYS’ IMPRISONMENT FOR BREACHING BAIL CONDITIONS WAS EXCESSIVE     Unanimously   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Lawrence Gatt, is a Maltese national, born in 1947, and until his imprisonment on 28 July 2006, lived in Senglea (Malta).   Facing drug trafficking proceedings, Mr Gatt was granted bail in August 2001. The conditions of bail included a personal guarantee of 23,300 euros (EUR) and restrictions on his leaving his place of residence. Following a complaint that he had been seen in Valletta during his curfew hours, the Criminal Court revoked his bail, ordered him to be re-arrested and to pay the guarantee. As he was not able to pay, imprisonment-in-default proceedings were brought under Articles 585 and 586 of the Criminal Code and, in July 2006, the sum in guarantee was converted into detention at the rate of one day per EUR 11.50, namely two thousand days (or more than five years and six months) imprisonment.   Mr Gatt brought a constitutional complaint which was ultimately dismissed on appeal in February   2008. The Constitutional Court held that his detention had its basis in Article   5   §   1   (b) (namely, to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that he had accepted the conditions of his bail in full knowledge of the consequences.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Gatt alleged that the conversion into imprisonment of the guarantee he had failed to pay on breaching his bail conditions had been excessive and disproportionate. He particularly highlighted that, under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, no ceiling was placed on the maximum length of detention and that he could not benefit from remission for good behaviour. The case was examined notably under Article 5 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   4 (prohibition of imprisonment for debt).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 June 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 5   It was not in dispute that Mr Gatt’s detention, ordered by the domestic courts on the basis of Articles 585 and 586 of the Maltese Criminal Code, had been lawful.   However, the Court considered that Mr Gatt, who had been under strict bail conditions for nearly five years – presumably without being able to earn a living – could not realistically have been expected to comply with the court order and fulfil the relevant obligation, and that, in the circumstances, his detention, especially taking into account its duration, had been disproportionate. In particular, Maltese law and its application in Mr Gatt’s case had been deficient in two respects: it had made no distinction between a breach of bail conditions related to the primary purpose of bail (ie appearance at trial) and other considerations of a less serious nature such as a curfew, and it had not applied a ceiling on the duration of detention, nor had it made any assessment of proportionality. Thus, it had failed to strike a balance between the importance in a democratic society of securing the fulfilment of the obligation in question and the importance of the right to liberty, in violation of Article   5   §   1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 4   Given the above finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4.   The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision. Nevertheless, given that Mr Gatt had been in detention since July 2006 in flagrant breach of Article 5 § 1, it recommended that Malta consider his immediate release.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ). To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Emma Hellyer (telephone : +33 3 90 21 42 15) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.