CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 avril 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 36756/97                       by Gianni and Astrid DE BIAGI                       against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:              MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                  N. BRATZA                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 19 June 1997 by Gianni and Astrid DE BIAGI against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 June 1997 under file No. 36756/97;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The first applicant is a citizen of the United States of America. His wife, the second applicant, is a French citizen.   The applicants are currently resident in Paris and are represented before the Commission by Mr. N. Maryan Green, a lawyer practising in Paris.        In or about February 1997 the applicants moved from Miami in the United States to Europe. Prior to flying to Europe, their two cats underwent veterinary checks in Miami and were vaccinated against rabies.   The applicants, accompanied by the two cats, flew to Paris, where the second applicant had relatives.   On 12 February 1997 the applicants took the Eurostar train from Paris to London, where the second applicant was due to attend a training programme for proposed employment with Air France. The applicants carried the two cats in a hold-all bag.   The applicants state that the French customs had commented upon the fact the applicants had cats with them, but voiced no objection, and had put the cats through the x-ray machine with the other luggage.   The applicants further state they were unaware of the prohibition on taking cats from France to England and that there were no signs at the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo to indicate the prohibition. The applicants were detained by customs officers at Waterloo station, at which time the second applicant was carrying the bag containing the cats.   The applicants were arrested and taken to Ebury Street police station and detained there from approximately 4 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., at which time they were released on bail on the condition that they surrender to Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court at 10 a.m. on 18 February 1997.   The second applicant explained that 18 February 1997 was the first day of her Air France Training Scheme, but the authorities refused to alter the hearing date.   The second applicant subsequently lost her offer of employment with Air France due to her inability to attend the training course on 18 February 1997.        The applicants state that the length of their detention was due to the fact that no-one had been available to interview them sooner. Under Article 13 of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 (as amended) ("the 1974 Order"), the attendance of an Animal Health Inspector was required in order to serve a notice upon the applicants under the Animal Health Act 1981 (as amended) ("the 1981 Act") and the 1974 Order.        The cats were confiscated on 12 February 1997 for illegal importation, and the applicants were handed a notice stating that the cats would be exported after fifteen days at the owners' expense if the animals failed to show any signs of rabies.   Arrangements were made to take the cats to the "Animal Reception Centre" at Heathrow.   The notice added that if no attempts were made to arrange for the exportation of the cats they could be "destroyed or disposed of".   The applicants made arrangements for the cats to be flown back to Paris after fifteen days. The applicants state that the cats were in a poor condition on their arrival in Paris.        At the Magistrates' Court hearing charges were brought under the 1974 Order and the 1981 Act against the second applicant.   The first applicant was not charged.   The second applicant, who was represented, pleaded guilty, stating that neither she nor her husband had the slightest knowledge that such a law existed.   The second applicant also stated that the two cats had valid rabies vaccination certificates.        The second applicant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for six months, but not fined.   No contribution to costs was ordered.   The magistrate expressed her disapproval of the lack of notices informing passengers of the Eurostar of the regulations.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants claim that their detention was arbitrary.   They underline that it appears that the only reason that their detention lasted five hours was because no officer was available to interview them earlier.   They point out that the police could have informed them of the offence which they had committed and released them on bail.        The applicants claim that it cannot be argued that they would "flee" after committing the offence, as they would then have to leave behind their beloved cats.        The applicants claim that it is not satisfactory in a democratic society that people are detained for reasons of administrative convenience, and that if an inspector of a particular grade is necessary to serve orders under the legislation, such an inspector should be present.        The applicants complain that their detention at the police station for approximately five and a half hours was unjustifiable in the circumstances, and constituted a breach of Article 5 para. 1   of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicants complain under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention in regard to their detention at the police station, prior to their release on bail.        Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows.        "1.    Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.      No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following      cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:        ...              c.     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected      for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal      authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence      or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his      committing an offence or fleeing after having done so ..."        The Commission notes that the applicants were detained on suspicion of having breached the 1974 Order.   That detention was plainly effected in order to ensure due service on the applicants of the relevant papers, and once the papers had been served, the applicants were released on bail, to attend at Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court on 18 February 1997.   The Commission considers that the detention was compatible with Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention as the lawful arrest of the applicants "for the purpose of bringing [them] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence".   Even if it cannot be assumed that the strict rules on animal importation into the United Kingdom are common knowledge, the applicants' ignorance of such rules cannot affect the position under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicants also complain about the length of their detention. The Commission considers that this complaint falls to be considered under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, which provides as follows:        "3.    Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the      provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought      promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to      exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a      reasonable time or to release pending trial.   Release may be      conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."        The applicants were detained for some five and a half hours, after which they were released on bail.   The Commission notes the applicants' contentions that the period was unreasonably long in the circumstances.   However, one of the purposes of police custody is precisely to enable the authorities to comply with administrative matters such as those in the present case.   The Commission considers that the period of five and a half hours in the present case was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,          DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                               M.P. PELLONPÄÄ      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber