Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 106
March 2008
Ladent v. Poland - 11036/03
Judgment 18.3.2008 [Section IV]
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Arbitrary detention based on erroneous conclusion that the applicant sought to evade justice: violation
Facts: The applicant is a Frenchman married to a Polish national. In March 2001 the administrator of a building in which the applicant and his wife had lived in Poland brought a private prosecution against the applicant for slander. After the applicant left Poland to return to live in France, a district court sent summonses in connection with those proceedings to his former address in Poland. These were never received by the applicant. In July 2002 the district court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody and issued a wanted notice. On 3 January 2003 the applicant was arrested during a routine passport check at the Polish border. He was questioned but could not understand what the officers said and refused to sign any documents. The applicant alleged that various requests he had made through his wife, such as contacting the French Embassy or providing him with an interpreter or a lawyer, were refused. He was remanded in custody. Six days later the applicant, after appointing a lawyer filed an application for release and appealed against the detention order. His counsel submitted, in particular, that following the applicant’s departure to France the district court had sent the summonses to his former address in Poland and to another address where he had never lived and that the applicant had not known about the criminal proceedings or been served with the private bill of indictment. The following day the district court ordered the applicant’s release on condition that he did not leave the country. The detention centre where the applicant was detained, refused to execute that order as it had only received a facsimile, not the original documents. The applicant was ultimately released on 13 January 2003. He alleged that he only learnt of the charges against him on that date. One month later the district court lifted the ban on the applicant leaving the country and he was eventually acquitted of all charges in January 2005.
Subsequently a local MP from Kraków wrote a letter to the President of Kraków Court of Appeal requesting explanations for the applicant’s arrest and detention. The President informed the MP that the principal error committed by the district court was the unfounded assumption that the applicant had tried to evade justice.
Law: Article 5 § 1 – The district court had eventually agreed with the applicant’s counsel’s submissions and replaced the detention order with non-custodial preventive measures. Furthermore, the Court attached considerable importance both to the statement of the President of the Kraków Court of Appeal and to the Polish Government’s concession that the district court had erred in finding that the applicant had been evading justice. It therefore concluded that the district court had failed to apply the relevant domestic legislation correctly and that the applicant’s detention had not been effected in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”. The detention was also arbitrary. The district court’s finding had been manifestly without foundation, as the applicant was never duly notified of the proceedings against him. Nonetheless, without giving consideration to any other form of preventive measure, the district court decided to penalise the applicant for allegedly evading justice even though he had not been aware of the proceedings against him. The detention order imposed on the applicant could not be considered a proportionate measure aimed at securing the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, considering in particular the petty nature of the offence he had allegedly committed. Finally, the administrative formalities concerning the applicant’s release could and should have been carried out more swiftly.
Conclusion: violations (unanimously).
Article 5 § 2 – The Court found that the applicant had not been informed promptly and in a language which he understood of the reasons for his arrest and the charges against him until his release.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 3 – The Court found that, following the applicant’s arrest on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, there was no automatic judicial review of his detention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy