Information Note on the Court’s case-law 33
August 2001
Mancini v. Italy - 44955/98
Judgment 2.8.2001 [Section II]
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Delay in transferring detainees from detention on remand to house arrest: violation
Facts: The applicants were both arrested following an armed robbery. The stolen goods were found in a shop owned by the applicants’ firm. The applicants were initially placed under house arrest and then released in December 1996. Suspicion again fell on them after two further armed robberies. In December 1997 the investigating judge ordered their detention pending trial. They appealed against that order. On 7 January 1998 the division that dealt with applications for review of preventive measures at the relevant court ordered their release from pre-trial detention and placed them under house arrest instead, on the ground that the risk of their committing a similar offence was not great enough to justify their detention. However, because no police officers were available, it was not until 13 January 1998 that they were transferred to their homes from the prison where they were being held.
Law: Article 5 § 1 (c) – For the purposes of Article 5 the applicants had been deprived of their liberty both when in prison and when under house arrest. The problem that arose was the authorities’ delay in substituting a less stringent preventive measure, namely house arrest, for detention in prison. The instant case was therefore clearly distinguishable from the other cases in which the Court had examined delays in releasing applicants. Furthermore, in the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom case (judgment of 28 May 1985) the issue before the Court had been the prolonged failure to transfer the applicant from a “special” psychiatric hospital to an ordinary psychiatric institution where the regime was more liberal; the place and conditions of the applicant’s detention had not ceased to be those pertaining to the lawful detention of a person of unsound mind, and the applicant’s right to liberty had not been limited to a greater extent than was permissible under the Convention. The Court had therefore found that the damage suffered by the applicant did not fall within the scope of Article 5 § 1. The instant case differed from the Ashingdane case in that there was a further factor to consider: the change in the nature of the applicants’ place of detention from a public institution to private accommodation. Unlike house arrest, detention in prison entailed fitting into an overall structure, sharing resources with other inmates and joining in activities with them and being subject to the authorities’ strict supervision of fundamental aspects of everyday life. In the final analysis, therefore, the situation complained of by the applicants fell within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (c). While some delay in executing a decision to release a detainee was normal and often inevitable, the authorities nonetheless had to endeavour to keep it to a minimum. The delay of more than three days in transferring the applicants to their homes from the prison in which they were being held was incompatible with Article 5.
Conclusion: violation (4 votes to 3).
© 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