Lawful Arrest or Detention

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Information note # 95 on the case-law of the Court, March 2007, Pages 11-12.

FACTS

(a)Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it:

Since the applicant attained the age of criminal responsibility he was convicted seven times, notably of murder, robberies and assaults, and spent only short periods outside prison. In 1986, the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention, since, according to experts, he was dangerous for the public and it was to be expected that he would repeat spontaneous acts of violence. Since 1991, the applicant, having served his full prison sentence, is remanded in preventive detention. At that time, the maximum term of preventive detention could not exceed ten years. In 1998, the Criminal Code was amended to the effect that the maximum period of preventive detention was abolished. In 2001, applying the new rule, the regional court dismissed the applicant’s motions to suspend on probation his placement in preventive detention. Having heard him in person, as well as the prison authorities, the prosecutor and an expert, the court found that it could not be expected that the applicant, if released, would not commit any serious offences. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. In his constitutional complaint he raised the issue of retroactive application of the amended Criminal Code provision which had led to his life-long imprisonment without any prospects of being released. In 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court, having consulted psychiatric experts and several prison directors, dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. It held, inter alia, that the absolute ban on the retroactivity of criminal laws imposed by the Basic Law did not cover the measures of correction and prevention provided for in the Criminal Code. It concluded that the legislator’s duty to protect the public against interference with its life, health and sexual integrity has outweighed the detainee’s reliance on continued application of the ten-year limit and that the retrospective application of the new rule had not been disproportionate.

NOTES:

preventive detention - превентивное заключение

by virtue of - в силу, на основании

retroactive application of law - применение закона с приданием ему обратной силы

legislative amendment – поправка законодательной власти

to attain the age of criminal responsibility – достичь возраста уголовной ответственности

to dismiss a motion - отклонять ходатайство

inter alia - между прочим

(b) Read the text again and copy the sentences that mean the following:

1) С тех пор, как заявитель достиг возраста уголовной ответственности он семь раз был приговорён к тюремному заключению, преимущественно за убийство, грабежи и разбойные нападения. 2) С 1991 заявитель, отбывший полный срок тюремного заключения, находится под стражей в камере предварительного заключения. 3) В 1998 в Уголовный Кодекс были внесены изменения с целью отмены максимального срока содержания в превентивном заключении. 4) Районный суд отклонил ходатайство заявителя прекратить его превентивное заключение с испытательным сроком. 5) В своей конституционной жалобе он поднял вопрос о применении положения изменённого Уголовного Кодекса с приданием ему обратной силы. 6) Федеральный Конституционный Суд, после консультаций с психиатрами и некоторыми директорами тюрем отклонил жалобу заявителя как необоснованную.

(c) Translate the following sentences into Russian:

1) In 1986, the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention, since, according to experts, he was dangerous for the public and it was to be expected that he would repeat spontaneous acts of violence. 2) Having heard him in person, as well as the prison authorities, the prosecutor and an expert, the court found that it could not be expected that the applicant, if released, would not commit any serious offences. 3) It held, inter alia, that the absolute ban on the retroactivity of criminal laws imposed by the Basic Law did not cover the measures of correction and prevention provided for in the Criminal Code. 4) It concluded that the legislator’s duty to protect the public against interference with its life, health and sexual integrity has outweighed the detainee’s reliance on continued application of the ten-year limit and that the retrospective application of the new rule had not been disproportionate.

(d) Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words from the text:

At that time,........ maximum term of.............. detention could not ............. ten years. In........., the Criminal Code........ amended to the.......... that the maximum........... of preventive detention........ abolished. In 2001,.............. the new rule,..... regional court dismissed......... applicant’s motions to................ on probation his............... in preventive detention.............. heard him in.............., as well as....... prison authorities, the........... and an expert,...... court found that....... could not be............ that the applicant,..... released, would not............ any serious offences........ applicant appealed unsuccessfully.

(e) Match the English expressions with their Russian equivalents in the table:

1) prolongation 2) preventive detention 3) by virtue of   4) retroactive application of law 5) legislative amendment 6) attain the age of criminal responsibility   7) act of violence 8) to the effect 9) abolish   10) to dismiss a motion 11) to suspend on probation 12) in person   13) prosecutor 14) to raise the issue of 15) inter alia

a) приостанавливать; откладывать; (временно) прекращать с испытательным сроком b) отклонять ходатайство c) между прочим d) продление, продолжение, пролонгация e) превентивное заключение f) обвинитель, прокурор g) поднимать вопрос; проблему, составляющую предмет рассмотрения h) применение закона с приданием ему обратной силы i) поправка законодательной власти j) акт насилия k) для этой цели, для этого, с целью l) аннулировать, отменять, упразднять, объявлять недействительным m) достичь возраста уголовной ответственности n) в силу, на основании o) лично

Answer the questions and make a brief summary of the text:

1) What is case VI about?

2) Who is the case about?

3) Why is the person considered dangerous to the public by the courts?

4) What were the applicant’s motions? Why?

5) What was the European Court of Human Rights final decision?

6) What is your opinion about what had happened?

7) What do you think about the European Court’s conclusion?

8) What would be your final judgment if you were an EC judge?

CASE VII