CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 novembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 91 November 2006 Dacosta Silva v. Spain - 69966/01 Judgment 2.11.2006 [Section V] Article 5 Article 5-1-a After conviction Disciplinary punishment of house arrest imposed on a member of the Civil Guard by his superior: violation   Facts : The applicant, a member of the Civil Guard, on learning that one of his close relatives was seriously ill, and after informing the duty officer, left for his parents’ home, where he stayed for nine days. His immediate superior then imposed on him the disciplinary penalty of six days’ house arrest for being absent from the barracks without leave. Appeals by the applicant against that decision were all dismissed. Law : The Spanish reservation in respect of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, which concerned the armed forces’ disciplinary rules, did not apply to the Civil Guard’s disciplinary rules, which had been introduced by a law that post-dated the reservation. House arrest constituted a form of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5. The penalty in question, ordered by the applicant’s immediate superior, had been immediately enforceable. The lodging of an appeal against it had not suspended its enforcement. The applicant’s superior had not been independent from the Civil Guard’s hierarchy or from other higher authorities. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings over which he had presided had been devoid of the judicial safeguards required by Article 5(1)(a). Consequently, the house arrest imposed on the applicant had not constituted a form of lawful detention “after conviction by a competent court”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © 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