CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 octobre 2005

.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. 79 October 2005 Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia - 31008/02 Judgment 13.10.2005 [Section I] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement Prohibition on leaving place of residence during criminal proceedings: no violation   Facts : The applicants are husband and wife. Criminal proceedings were instituted against them on account of alleged forgery of expense accounts in 1996 and 1998, respectively. An obligation not to leave their place of residence was imposed on them as a preventive measure. In 2003, the District Court formally lifted the obligation not to leave the place of residence without permission in respect of both applicants (although it had already been cancelled by the courts in 2002). The proceedings against the wife were discontinued in 2003, and those in respect of the husband in 2005. Law : Article 6(1) (reasonable time) – The length of the proceedings had been excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 – It was not disputed that there had been a restriction on the applicants’ freedom of movement. The interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the applicants’ presence at the place where the investigation was being conducted, thus the protection of crime and protection of rights and freedoms of others. As to the necessity and proportionality of the measure, the present case was to be distinguished from Luordo v. Italy , where the Court found that the obligation not to leave one’s place of residence imposed on an applicant for the duration of bankruptcy proceedings, which had lasted 14 years and 8 months, had been disproportionate. In the present case the applicants had been subject to criminal proceedings, and it was not questionable that a preventive measure of this nature be applied to ensure the efficient conduct of a criminal prosecution. Moreover, the duration of the measure had not applied for the whole of the criminal proceedings. It had been cancelled by the District Court in 2003. Taking into account the Court’s competence ratione temporis , the restriction had lasted a period of 4 years and 3 months in respect of both applicants. Hence, the duration of the measure in itself had not been disproportionate. In examining whether a fair balance had been struck, the Court noted that the first applicant had twice applied for permission to leave his district, which had been granted. The applicants had not provided any evidence to show that such a permission to leave their place of residence had been rejected on other occasions, in particular when they had wanted to accompany their son for a job interview. Accordingly, the restriction on the applicants’ freedom of movement had not been disproportionate. Conclusion : no 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