CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s365FF37E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:11pt } .s3DCF6A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s8C990AC2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } 698 28.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Grand Chamber judgment [1]   Mangouras v. Spain (application no. 12050/ 04)   THE BAIL SET FOR THE RELEASE OF THE CAPTAIN OF A SHIP WHICH CAUSED AN ECOLOGICAL DISASTER WAS NOT EXCESSIVE   By a majority :   No violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras was formerly the captain of the ship Prestige , which in November 2002, while sailing off the Spanish coast, discharged the 70,000 tonnes of fuel oil it was carrying into the Atlantic Ocean when its hull sprang a leak.   The oil spill caused an ecological disaster 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 the possibility of release on bail of three million euros (EUR).   Mr Mangouras was detained for 83 days and granted provisional release when his bail was paid by the shipowner’s insurers.   The Spanish authorities later authorised the applicant’s return to Greece, on condition that the Greek authorities enforced compliance with the periodic supervision to which he had been subject in Spain. As a result, he must report every two weeks to a police station. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged, in particular, that the sum set for bail in his case had been excessive and had been fixed without his personal circumstances being taken into consideration. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 March 2004. In a judgment of 8 January 2009 , the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. On 5 June 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request. A Grand Chamber hearing took place in the Human Rights Building in Strasbourg on 23 September 2009.   Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa ( France ), President, Christos Rozakis (Greece), Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzgovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova) , Judges , Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz (Spain) , ad hoc Judge ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that under Article 5 § 3, bail could only be required as long as reasons justifying detention prevailed, and that the authorities had to take as much care in fixing appropriate bail as in deciding whether or not the accused’s continued detention was indispensable.   Furthermore, while the amount of bail had to be assessed principally by reference to the accused and his assets it was not unreasonable, in certain circumstances, to take into account also the amount of the loss imputed to him.   Mr Mangouras had been deprived of his liberty for 83 days and had been released following the lodging of a bank guarantee of EUR 3,000,000. In fixing bail the Spanish courts had taken into consideration the risk that the applicant might abscond, taking the view that it was essential to ensure his appearance in court. In addition to the applicant’s personal circumstances, they had also had regard to the seriousness of the offence of which he stood accused, the impact of the disaster on public opinion and the applicant’s “professional environment”, namely the maritime transport of petrochemicals.   New realities had to be taken into consideration in interpreting the requirements of Article   5   §   3, namely the growing and legitimate concern both in Europe and internationally in relation to environmental offences and the tendency to use criminal law as a means of enforcing the environmental obligations imposed by European and international law. The Court was of the view that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of human rights protection correspondingly required greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies. Hence, it could not be ruled out that the professional environment which formed the setting for the activity in question should be taken into consideration in determining the amount of bail, in order to ensure that the measure was effective.   Given the exceptional nature of the applicant’s case and the huge environmental damage caused by the marine pollution, which had seldom been seen on such a scale, it was hardly surprising that the judicial authorities should have adjusted the amount required by way of bail in line with the level of liability incurred, so as to ensure that those responsible had no incentive to evade justice and forfeit the security. It was not certain that a level of bail set solely by reference to the applicant’s assets would have been sufficient to ensure his attendance at the hearing.   In addition, the very fact that payment had been made by the shipowner’s insurer appeared to confirm that the Spanish courts, when they had referred to the applicant’s “professional environment”, had been correct in finding – implicitly – that a relationship existed between Mr   Mangouras and the persons who were to provide the security.   The Spanish courts had therefore taken sufficient account of the applicant’s personal situation, and in particular his status as an employee of the ship’s owner, his professional relationship with the persons who were to provide the security, his nationality and place of permanent residence and also his lack of ties in Spain and his age. In view of the particular context of the case and the disastrous environmental and economic consequences, the authorities had been justified in taking into account the seriousness of the offences in question and the amount of the loss imputed to the applicant.   Accordingly, the Court held, by ten votes to seven, that there had been no violation of Article   5 § 3.   Separate opinions   Judges Rozakis, Bratza, Bonello, Cabral Barreto, David Thór Björgvinsson, Nicolaou and Bianku expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available in English and French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Further information about the Court is available on its   website ( www.echr.coe.int ). To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .     Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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) 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] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution