AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 36756/97
by Gianni and Astrid DE BIAGI
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 19 June 1997 by
Gianni and Astrid DE BIAGI against the United Kingdom and registered
on 30 June 1997 under file No. 36756/97;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is a citizen of the United States of America.
His wife, the second applicant, is a French citizen. The applicants
are currently resident in Paris and are represented before the
Commission by Mr. N. Maryan Green, a lawyer practising in Paris.
In or about February 1997 the applicants moved from Miami in the
United States to Europe. Prior to flying to Europe, their two cats
underwent veterinary checks in Miami and were vaccinated against
rabies. The applicants, accompanied by the two cats, flew to Paris,
where the second applicant had relatives. On 12 February 1997 the
applicants took the Eurostar train from Paris to London, where the
second applicant was due to attend a training programme for proposed
employment with Air France. The applicants carried the two cats in a
hold-all bag. The applicants state that the French customs had
commented upon the fact the applicants had cats with them, but voiced
no objection, and had put the cats through the x-ray machine with the
other luggage. The applicants further state they were unaware of the
prohibition on taking cats from France to England and that there were
no signs at the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo to indicate the
prohibition. The applicants were detained by customs officers at
Waterloo station, at which time the second applicant was carrying the
bag containing the cats. The applicants were arrested and taken to
Ebury Street police station and detained there from approximately
4 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., at which time they were released on bail on the
condition that they surrender to Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court at
10 a.m. on 18 February 1997. The second applicant explained that
18 February 1997 was the first day of her Air France Training Scheme,
but the authorities refused to alter the hearing date. The second
applicant subsequently lost her offer of employment with Air France due
to her inability to attend the training course on 18 February 1997.
The applicants state that the length of their detention was due
to the fact that no-one had been available to interview them sooner.
Under Article 13 of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other
Mammals) Order 1974 (as amended) ("the 1974 Order"), the attendance of
an Animal Health Inspector was required in order to serve a notice upon
the applicants under the Animal Health Act 1981 (as amended) ("the 1981
Act") and the 1974 Order.
The cats were confiscated on 12 February 1997 for illegal
importation, and the applicants were handed a notice stating that the
cats would be exported after fifteen days at the owners' expense if the
animals failed to show any signs of rabies. Arrangements were made to
take the cats to the "Animal Reception Centre" at Heathrow. The notice
added that if no attempts were made to arrange for the exportation of
the cats they could be "destroyed or disposed of". The applicants made
arrangements for the cats to be flown back to Paris after fifteen days.
The applicants state that the cats were in a poor condition on their
arrival in Paris.
At the Magistrates' Court hearing charges were brought under the
1974 Order and the 1981 Act against the second applicant. The first
applicant was not charged. The second applicant, who was represented,
pleaded guilty, stating that neither she nor her husband had the
slightest knowledge that such a law existed. The second applicant also
stated that the two cats had valid rabies vaccination certificates.
The second applicant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for
six months, but not fined. No contribution to costs was ordered. The
magistrate expressed her disapproval of the lack of notices informing
passengers of the Eurostar of the regulations.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants claim that their detention was arbitrary. They
underline that it appears that the only reason that their detention
lasted five hours was because no officer was available to interview
them earlier. They point out that the police could have informed them
of the offence which they had committed and released them on bail.
The applicants claim that it cannot be argued that they would
"flee" after committing the offence, as they would then have to leave
behind their beloved cats.
The applicants claim that it is not satisfactory in a democratic
society that people are detained for reasons of administrative
convenience, and that if an inspector of a particular grade is
necessary to serve orders under the legislation, such an inspector
should be present.
The applicants complain that their detention at the police
station for approximately five and a half hours was unjustifiable in
the circumstances, and constituted a breach of Article 5 para. 1 of
the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the
Convention in regard to their detention at the police station, prior
to their release on bail.
Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention provides, so far as
relevant, as follows.
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following
cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
c. the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected
for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal
authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence
or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his
committing an offence or fleeing after having done so ..."
The Commission notes that the applicants were detained on
suspicion of having breached the 1974 Order. That detention was
plainly effected in order to ensure due service on the applicants of
the relevant papers, and once the papers had been served, the
applicants were released on bail, to attend at Horseferry Road
Magistrates' Court on 18 February 1997. The Commission considers that
the detention was compatible with Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c)
of the Convention as the lawful arrest of the applicants "for the
purpose of bringing [them] before the competent legal authority on
reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence". Even if it
cannot be assumed that the strict rules on animal importation into the
United Kingdom are common knowledge, the applicants' ignorance of such
rules cannot affect the position under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the
Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicants also complain about the length of their detention.
The Commission considers that this complaint falls to be considered
under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, which provides
as follows:
"3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to
exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a
reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be
conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
The applicants were detained for some five and a half hours,
after which they were released on bail. The Commission notes the
applicants' contentions that the period was unreasonably long in the
circumstances. However, one of the purposes of police custody is
precisely to enable the authorities to comply with administrative
matters such as those in the present case. The Commission considers
that the period of five and a half hours in the present case was
compatible with the requirements of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the
Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy