Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56
September 2003
Vasileva v. Denmark - 52792/99
Judgment 25.9.2003 [Section I]
Article 5
Article 5-1-b
Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law
Detention for refusal to disclose identity: violation
Facts: The applicant is an elderly woman who had a dispute with a ticket inspector on a public bus concerning the validity of her ticket. The applicant refused to disclose her identity to the inspector, and the police were called. She also refused to give her name and address to the police. She was arrested and detained for thirteen and a half hours – from 9. 30 p.m. to 11.00 a.m. – until she had revealed her identity. Following her release, the applicant collapsed and was hospitalised for three days with high blood pressure. The applicant claimed compensation from the Chief Constable for having been detained, and subsequently complained to the Regional Prosecutor and to the Prosecutor General, but her request was not successful. She appealed to the City Court, which awarded compensation. The prosecution appealed, and the High Court reversed the City Court’s decision, finding that there had been no basis for granting the applicant compensation as she had continuously refused to reveal her name during both her arrest and subsequent detention. The applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Law: Article 5 § 1 (b) – The detention was in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act, which obliges every person to disclose his name, address and date of birth to the police upon request, and aimed at “securing the fulfilment” of this obligation as required by Article 5 § 1 (b). The question was whether the authorities, in securing the obligation of disclosure of one’s identity, had struck an appropriate balance. The Court acknowledged that it was fundamental for the police to be able to identify citizens in discharging of their duties, as well as legitimate for transport companies to involve the police in disputes concerning the validity of a bus ticket. It was therefore in accordance with 5 § 1 (b) to detain the applicant. However, as regards the length of the detention, depriving the applicant of her liberty for thirteen and a half hours had been longer than necessary, and not proportionate to the purpose of her detention, taking into account that efforts to establish her identity had not been undertaken during the full detention period. In addition, the applicant had not been attended by a doctor, which would have been justified given her advanced age and could have also served to overcome the communication impasse between her and the police. In sum, the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the right to liberty and the need to ensure the “fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© 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