Information Note on the Court’s case-law 207
May 2017
Vasiliciuc v. the Republic of Moldova - 15944/11
Judgment 2.5.2017 [Section II]
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Failure of authorities to make reasonable attempts to inform applicant of criminal proceedings against her and necessity to appear before them: violation
Facts – The applicant, a Moldovan national living in Greece, was stopped and questioned at Chisinau airport in relation to jewellery that she was carrying. Following her return to Greece, criminal proceedings were initiated against her for attempted smuggling of jewellery and she was subsequently summoned to appear via her Moldovan address. On 19 June 2009 a Moldovan district court ordered the applicant’s detention on the basis that she had failed to appear before the investigating authorities when summoned. The applicant became aware of the detention order and applied to have it revoked arguing that she had been unaware of the criminal proceedings against her. Her application was refused and her appeal dismissed. In 2011 the applicant was arrested in Greece, on the basis of an international arrest warrant, and held in detention pending extradition proceedings for a period of 23 days.
In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 5 that the detention order issued against her by the Moldovan authorities had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
Law – Article 5 § 1
(a) Admissibility – The applicant was under the control and authority of the Greek authorities in the period between her arrest in Greece and her release from detention. That deprivation of liberty had its origin in the measures taken by the Moldovan authorities, namely the international arrest warrant issued at Interpol at their request. In the context of an extradition procedure, a requested State should be able to presume the validity of the legal documents issued by the requesting State and on the basis of which a deprivation of liberty was requested. Furthermore, the country requesting the extradition had to ensure that the request for detention and extradition was lawful, not only under national law, but also under the Convention. Accordingly, the act complained of by the applicant, having been instigated by Moldova on the basis of its own domestic law and followed up by Greece in response to its international obligations had to be attributed to Moldova notwithstanding that the act was executed in Greece.
(b) Merits – The applicant’s deprivation of liberty in Greece was a direct consequence of the detention order of 19 June 2009 and no deprivation of liberty in Greece would have been possible in the absence of that order. That fact was expressly noted by the Greek courts in their decisions concerning the applicant’s extradition. The applicant’s detention in Greece, although formally for the purpose of her extradition, was part of the mechanism used by the Moldovan authorities to implement the detention order outside Moldova’s borders.
The reason for ordering the applicant’s detention relied upon by the Moldovan courts was the fact that the applicant had failed to appear before the investigating authorities when summoned. However, the applicant had left the country lawfully at a time when no criminal proceedings were pending against her. It was after she had left the country that the authorities had initiated criminal proceedings. She had given the authorities her contact information in Greece but in spite of that the prosecutors had issued the summons to her Moldovan address. The prosecutors had made no attempt to follow up information that she was in Greece and had made no reasonable attempts to inform her of the criminal proceedings and the necessity to appear before them.
The authorities had chosen to take a very formalistic approach to the problem of summoning the applicant and when she had not shown up they had hastily concluded that she had absconded. The refusal of the domestic courts to check the applicant’s submissions about improper summoning and to give her a chance to appear before the authorities persuaded the Court that the applicant’s detention could not be considered necessary and devoid of arbitrariness.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 3,000 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