16/12/2016
Hotarare CEDO - MASURILE PREVENTIVE. Ignatov v Ucraine (application no. 40583/15) din 15.12.2016
Desi aparent, solutia CEDO mentionata anterior, face referire doar la masura arestului preventiv, aceasta trebuie interpretata ca aplicabila tuturor masurilor preventive.
Curtea stabileste prin aceasta hotarare, ca aplicarea masurilor preventive trebuie sustinuta de probe si nu doar de presupuneri, iar trecerea timpului aplicarii masurii preventive impune necesitatea unor justificari suplimentare pentru mentinerea masurii.
Altfel spus, gravitatea faptei si implicit riscul de a se sustrage, trebuie sustinute de probe in acest sens. Daca sustinerile sunt facute intr-o forma pur abstracta, nefiind sustinute de probe, raportate la o serie de alti factori relevanti, nu justifica luarea masurii preventive sau mentinerea sa.
Va prezint in continuare, un extras din comunicatul de presa al CEDO, cu privire la aceasta decizie.
"Article 5 (right to liberty)
Failure to provide proper reasons for pre-trial detention
The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, because the authorities had failed to give convincing reasons for holding Mr Ignatov in custody prior to his conviction.
In each of the decisions to continue the detention, the courts had relied on the same grounds as those given in the initial decision (with the exception of the hearing on 1 October 2013, when no reasons were given at all). The grounds relied upon were the seriousness of the charges against Mr Ignatov, and the consequent risk of him absconding. However, when given in a purely abstract form, such grounds are not sufficient to justify pre-trial detention.
They must be supported by factual evidence, and considered with reference to a number of other relevant factors. In Mr Ignatov’s case, the courts merely gave this reason for his detention in general terms, using repetitive phrases.
There was no suggestion that they had made an appropriate assessment of the facts relevant to the question of whether detention was necessary in the circumstances.
Moreover, with the passage of time Mr Ignatov’s detention had required more justification – but the courts did not provide any. Finally, at no stage did the authorities consider any other preventative measures as an
alternative to detention.
Failure to provide any reasons whatsoever – decision of 1 October 2013
The Court held that, in its decision of 1 October 2013 committing Mr Ignatov to trial, the District Court had given no reasons whatsoever in support of its ruling to continue Mr Ignatov’s pre-trial detention. Under Article 5 § 1, State authorities are not permitted to detain individuals arbitrarily.
The failure of the domestic courts to give any reasons when ordering Mr Ignatov’s detention for a prolonged period of time had been incompatible with this principle of protection from arbitrariness.
The Court therefore found that the decision had violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention."
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 98-100, 10 February 2011"
