Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19801007-891680
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 05:22:26+00:00
Document Index: 281979044

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 282", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 282", "l'article 5", "l'article 13", "l'article 2043", "l'article 27"]

FREDA c. ITALIE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche FREDA c. ITALIE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; Partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8916/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-10-07;8916.80 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : FREDADéfendeurs : ITALIETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8916/80 Franco FREDA v/ITAL Y
Franco FREDA c/ ITALI E DECISION of 7 October 1980 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 7 octobre 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ@t
I of the Conventlon : Co-operation between the police of a Hig h eArlc Corrtraeâ¢tirrg Party and a non-contracting Parryto the Convention. Examination of the facts for which the applicantfell under the jurisdiction of the High Contracting Party. Article 5, paragraph I Ibl, of the Convention : Deprivation of libertyfor non compliance with compulsory residence imposed by judicial decision . The fact that a wanant of arrest was notified to the applicâ¢ant two days after the beginning of the deprivation of liberry does not affect i[s lawfitl character . Artlcle 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention : Warrant of anest served on the person concgrned on his descent from a plane after a two days journec tmder police escort . Given the particular circumstances and taking into account the fact that the person concerned could not ignore the reasons for which he was wanted, no appearance of violation . Article 13 of the Conventlon : Consideration of a remedy permitting lanfulness of a past deprivation of liberry to be challenged .
Article 1 de la Conventlon : CoopÃ©ration entre la police d'un Etat non Partie Ã la Convention et la police d'un Etat Partie Ã la ConventiÃ n . Examen des faits Ã raison desquels le requÃ©rant relevait de la jurisdiction de !Etat Partie Ã la Convention . Article 5, paragraph 1 Iltt . (bl, de la Convention : Privation de libertÃ© pour infraction Ã une obligation de rÃ©sidence rÃ©sultant d'une dÃ©cision judiciaire . Le fait qu'un mandat d'arrÃ©t ait Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant deux jours aprÃ¨s le dÃ©but de la privation de libertÃ© n'affecte pas la base lÃ©gale de celle-ci .
-zÃ®0-
Artlcle 5, paragreph 2, de la Conventlon : Mandat d'arrÃ©t noti/iÃ© Ã l'LuÃ©ressÃ© d sa desceme d'avion aprÃ¨s un vovage de deur jours sous escorte de police . Vu les circonstances particu(iÃ¨res et compte tenu du,%ait que l'intÃ©ressÃ© rie pouvait ignorer les motifs pour lesquels il Ã©tait recherchÃ© . wtcune apparmrce de vio6r tion de cetue disposition .
Artlcle 13 de la Conventlon : lrtdication d'un reeâ¢ours perntettnnt . en droit ita/ien . de comester la lÃ©gitimitÃ© dune privation de libertÃ© passÃ©e .
(EnQlish : see p . 254)
Les faits de lÃ cause, tels qu'i1s ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1. Le requÃ©rant . nÃ© en 1941 . est un ressortissant italien, actuellement dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de Novara (Italie) . Il est accusÃ©, avec d'autres co-inculpÃ©s . de plusieurs attentats commis en Italie en 1969 et en particulier du carnage du 12 dÃ©cembre 1969, pour lesquels il a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© le 23 fÃ©vrier 1979 par la cour d'assises de Catanzaro Ã la dÃ©tention Ã perpÃ©tuitÃ© . Le procÃ¨s d'appel est en cours . La prÃ©sente requÃªte ne vise pas la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale ntais les circonstances de sa dÃ©tention actuelle . 2 . Le 27 aoÃ»t 1976, le requÃ©rant fut mis en libertÃ© par la section d'instruction de la cour d'appel de Catanzaro pour expiration du dÃ©lai ntaximunt de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive et assignÃ© Ã rÃ©sidence sur une PIe (Isola del Giglio) Ã titre de ntesure de sÃ»retÃ© . Le 7 janvier 1977 cette juridiction autorisa le requÃ©rant Ã se rendre Ã Catanzaro pour y demeurer afin de prendre part aux dÃ©bats devant la cour d'assises . En octobre 1978 . le requÃ©rant s'Ã©loigna de Catanzaro et s'enfuit Ã l'Ã©tranger . 3 . Le 20 aoÃ»t 1979, le requÃ©rant fut apprÃ©hendÃ© au Costa Rica par la police de ce pays et conduit dans les bureaux de la Direction gÃ©nÃ©rale de la SOretÃ© . Il n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© des raisons de son arrestation . AprÃ¨s une dÃ©tention de deux jours . le 22 aoÃ»t au soir, il aurait Ã©tÃ© conduit, menottes au poing . Ã l'aÃ©roport et remis Ã des agents de la police italienne, qui le frent nionter dans un avion de l'aviation militaire italienne . Au cours du voyage, le requÃ©rant aurait Ã©tÃ© enchainÃ© Ã son siÃ¨ge . L'avion fit deux escales techniques au cours desquelles le requÃ©rant aurait demandÃ© Ã pouvoir descendre de . l'avion pour demander l'asile politique aux autoritÃ©s du pavs . Il en aurait Ã©tÃ© empÃªchÃ© .
4 . Le 24 aoÃ»t Ã 7 h 00 du matin l'avion a tt errit Ã l'aÃ©roport militaire de Rome . oÃ¹ fut noti fl Ã© au requÃ©rant un mandat d'arrÃ©t dÃ©cernÃ© Ã son encontre le 6 octobre 1978 par la cour d'assises de Catanzaro . Ce mandatobligatoire d'aprÃ¨s la loi (art . 272 CPP), Ã©tait motivÃ© par le fait que le requÃ©rant en s'enfuyant de la commune dans laquelle il avait Ã©tÃ© assignÃ© Ã rÃ©sidence n'avait pas respectÃ© l'obligation qui lui Ã©tait faite d'y demeurer . Le requÃ©rant fut aussitÃ´t mis en dÃ©tention et soumis Ã l'isolement . 5 . Le 27 aoÃ»t 1979 fut notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant un avis de poursuites (comniunicazione giudiziaria) datÃ© du mÃªme jour, Ã©manant du tribunal de Catanzaro . Par cet avis le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© qu'une instruction avait Ã©tÃ© ouve rt e contre lui pour avoir quittÃ© le pays sans Ãªtre pourvu de passeport ( art . 158 T .U .L .P .S .') et pour falsification de passepo rt (art . 477 et 482 C .P.) . Le lendemain, 28 ao0t, un mandat d'arrÃªt pour ces dÃ©lits fut dÃ©cernÃ© par le mÃªme tribunal, mandat notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant le 29 ao Ã» t . 6 . Le 27 aoÃ»t l'avocat du requÃ©rant avait demandÃ© la levÃ©e de la mesure d'isolement . Le 29 dÃ©cembre 1979, le requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme s'adressa au procureur de la RÃ©publique de Rome en dÃ©nonÃ§ant le caractÃ¨re illÃ©gitime de sa dÃ©tention . 7 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue la violation des a rt icles 5 et 13 de la Convention . . Il asance en premier lieu que sa privation de libertÃ© par les autoritÃ©s italier~nes a eu lieu en dehors des hypothÃ¨ses de l'extradition ou de l'expulsion . Sa privation de libe rtÃ© serait donc illÃ©gitime . II n'aurait bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'aucune garantie de caractÃ¨re judiciaire . Ainsi , pendant qu'il se trouvait Ã bord d'un avion italien, il a Ã© tÃ© empÃªchÃ© de descendre lors des escales alors qu'aucun mandat ne lui avait Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ© . Celui-ci ne lui fut notifiÃ© qu'Ã son ar ri vÃ©e . Par ailleurs, il n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© dcs raisons de son arrestation . Le requÃ©rant avance enfin qu'il ne dispose en droit italien d'aucune voie de recours pour faire constater le caractÃ¨re illÃ©gitime de son arrestation .
EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la privation de libe rtÃ© du 22 aoÃ»t 1979, date Ã laquelle il a Ã©tÃ© remis par les autoritÃ©s du Costa Rica aux agents de la force publique italienne qui l'ont fait monter dans un avion militaire italien, jusqu'au 24 ao0t 1979, date Ã laquelle l'avion militaire a atterri Ã Rome . Il allÃ¨gue que sa privaiion de libe rt Ã© n'a pas Ã©tÃ© conforme Ã l'a rt icle 5 de la Convention .
â¢ Texie unique des lois sur la sÃ¹retÃ© publique .
- 2S2 -
En particulier, il fait valoir q~ie la pric3tion de libertÃ© - intervenue Ã la suite d'une ntesure se situant en dehors des hypothÃ¨ses de l'extradition ou de l'expulsion - a Ã©tÃ© illÃ©gitinie du fait qu'aucun mandat ne lui a Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ© au cours de la pÃ©riode concernÃ©e . En plus, il n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© des raisons de son arrestation . 2 . La Comntission est d'avis que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ la requÃªte concernerait les circonstances dans lesquelles le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de sa libertÃ© au Costa Rica avant sa remise aux agents de la force publique italienne, elle Ã©chappe Ã la compÃ©tence de la Commission ratione personae, la Convention europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme ne liant pas cet Etat . et devrait dÃ¨s lors Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme Ã©tanl incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention . 3 . La requÃªte toutefois concerne essentiellement la privation de libertÃ© dont le requÃ©rant a fait l'objet par les autoritÃ©s italiennes . Or, il est Ã©tabli que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© pris en charge par des agents d e la force publique italienne et privÃ© de libertÃ© dans un avion militaire italien . DÃ©s lors, le requÃ©rant, Ã partir du montent de la remise, relevait effectivement de l'autoritÃ© de l'Italie . et donc de la "juridiction" de ce pays, nt@me si cette autoritÃ© s'est exercÃ©e en l'occurrence Ã l'Ã©tranger (cf. la dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 6780/74 et NÂ° 6950/75, Chypre c/Turquie . DR 2, p . 125) . 4 . En ce qui concerne la lÃ©galitÃ© de la privation de libertÃ©, il est Ã©tabli qu'un niandat d'arr@t (Mandato di cattura) avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cernÃ© cuntre le requÃ©rant le 6 octobre 1978 par la cour d'assises de Catanzaro . Cc mandat d'arrÃªt a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cernÃ© parce que le requÃ©rant avait enfreint l'oblieation qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© iniposÃ©e . conformÃ©ntent Ã l'article 282 CPP . de ne pas s'Ã©loigner du lieu de rÃ©sidence qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© indiquÃ© . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© donc privÃ© rie sa libertÃ© dans Ics conditions prÃ©vues Ã l'anicle 5, paragraphe I, litt . (b), de la Convention .
Ledit mandat d'arrÃªt a Ã©tÃ© exÃ©cutÃ© par des agents de la force publique italienne . L'exÃ©cution du mandat a Ã©tÃ© lÃ©gale d'aprÃ¨s le droit italien . La Conintission n'apercoit dans la coopÃ©ration qui s'est Ã©tablie dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce entre les autoritÃ©s italiennes et celles du Costa Rica aucun Ã©lÃ©nient de nature Ã soulever des problÃ¨mes sous l'angle de l'article 5 de la Convention . La privation de libertÃ© a Ã©tÃ© donc exÃ©cutÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 5 de la Convention . Le fait que le mandat d'arrÃ©t n'ait Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant qu'Ã s a descenle d'avion n'enlÃ¨ve pas Ã la privÃ tion de libertÃ©, dont il avait fait l'objet, sa base lÃ©gale en droit italien . 5 . Quant Ã l'allÃ©gation d'aprÃ¨s laquelle le requÃ©rant n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© des raisons de son arrestation- la Commission estime que ce dernier ne pouvait pas ignorer qu'en s'Ã©loignant du lieu de rÃ©sidence qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© indiquÃ©, il avait enfreint une obligation qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© imposÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã - 253 -
l'article 282 CPP et que l'Ã©mission d'unmandat d'arrÃªt s'ensuivrait nÃ©cessairement, aux termes des articles 272 et 292 CPP . En tout Ã©t'at docause, le niandat d'arrÃªt prÃ©citÃ© a Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant Ã son arrivÃ©e Ã Ronte . Par consÃ©quent, dans les circonstances de la prÃ©sente affaire : compte tenu notamntent de ce qui a Ã©tÃ© exposÃ© ci-dessus, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© inforniÃ© des raisons de son arrestation conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 5 . paragraphe 2â¢ de la Convention . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue aussi n'avoir disposÃ© d'aucun recours pour f'air e .6 constater le caractÃ¨re illÃ©gitime de sa privation de libertÃ©, telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©e par les agents de la force publique italiÃ©nne . Il invoque Ã 'cet Ã©gard l'article 13 de la Convention . Seâ¢ rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã cetfe disposition, le requÃ©rant auraitpu, entre autrÃ¨sâ¢ assigner l'Etat italien devant les tribunaux civils, 'sur base de l'article 2043 du code civil italien et aurait pu faire valoir la prÃ©tendue illÃ©gitimitÃ© des actes accomplis par des agents de la force publique italienne . . La Contmission estime, en conclusion, que les faits de . la cause, tel s -7 qu'ils lui ont Ã©tÃ© soumis, ne rÃ©vÃ¨lent aucune violation des articles 5 et 13 de la Convention et que la requÃªte doit dÃ¨s'lors Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement par application de l'article 27, paragraph 2, de la Convention .
Par ees motifs, la Commission
â¢ .DECLAR OUÃTIECVABL
(TRANSLATIOM ~ â¢ - ~ THE FACT S . The facU of the application as stated by the applicant may be summarised as follows : . The applicant who was born in 1941, is an Italian citizen and at presen t .I detained in Novara prison (Italy) . He is accused together with others of several outrages committed in Italy in 1969 and in particular of the murders Ã´f 12 December 1969 for which he was convicted by the Catanzaro Court of Assizes on 23 February 1979 and sentenced to life emprisonment . His appeal is still pending . This application is not concerned with the criminal proceedings but with Ihe circumstances of his present arrest . - 254 -
2 . On 27 August 1976 he was released by the investigating section of the Cauanzaro Court of Appeal as the niaximum period for detention on remand had expired and placed in compulsory residence on an island (Isola del Giglio) as a security measure . On 7 January 1977 the court authorised the applicant to go to Catanzaro and remain there in order to attend the hearing before the Court of Assize . In Oclober 1978 the applicant left Catanzaro and took refuge abroad . 3 . On 20 August 1979 the applicant was arrested in Costa Rica by the local police and taken to the Oflices of the Headquarters of the Security Police . He was allegedly not informed of the reasons for his arrest . After being detained for two days he alleges that he was taken in handcuffs on the evening of 22 August to the airport and handed over to officers of the Italian police who made him enter an Italian airforce aeroplane . During the flight he alleges that he was chained to his seat . The aeroplane made two technical landings during which the applicant allegedly asked to leave the aeroplane in order to ask for political asylunt from the authorities of the country in question but was prevented from doing so . 4 . On 24 August 1979 at 7 a .m . the aeroplane landed at Rome military airport where the applicant was served with an arrest warrant, issued against him on 6 October 1978 by the Cantanzaro Cour1 of Assize . The warrant, which was mandatory under Italian law (Article 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), slated that the applicant by absconding from the district (commune) in which he was contpulsorily resident, had failed to respect his obligation to rentain there . He was immediately placed in detention and solitary confinement . 5 . On 27 August 1979 he was served with notice of proceedings (communicazione giudiziara) dated the same day from the Catanzaro Regional Court . This informed him that an investigation had been opened against him on the charge of leaving the country without a passport (Section 158 of the Consolidated Public Security Act) and for forging a passport (Articles 477 and 482 of the Crintinal Code) .
On the next day . 28 August . a warrant of arrest was issued for these offences by the same court and served on the applicant on 29 August . 6 . On 27 August the applicant's counsel applied for the solitary confinement to be terminated ; on 29 December 1979 the applicant himself applied to the Rome Public Prosecutor complaining of the unlawful nature of his detention . 7 . He alleges a violation of Article 5 and 13 of the Convention . In the first place his emprisonment by the Italian authorities was in no way connected with extradition or expulsion . The deprivation of liberty was thus unlawful .
He had enjoyed no form of judicial protection . Thus, while on board the Italian aeroplane, he had been prevented from leaving during the stops although no warrant had been served on him . This was only served on his arrival . Moreover, he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest . The applicant further complains that he has no remedy in Italian law enabling him to have his arrest declared unlawful . THE LA W 1. The applicant complains of his deprivation of liberty from 22 August 1979 . when he was handed over by the Costa Rica authorities to the Italian police, who obliged him to go on board of an Italian Air Force aeroplane, until 24 August 1979 when the aeroplane landed in Rome . He alleges that this deprivation of liberty was not in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention . In particular he argues that the deprivation of liberty (imposed by a measure unconnected wi(h extradition or expulsion) was unlawful because no warrant was served on him during the period in question . Furthermore, he was not infornted of the reasons for his arrest .2 . The Comntission considers that to the extent that the application relate s to the circumstances in which the applicant was deprived of his freedom in Costa Rica before being handed over to the Italian police, it lies outside the Commission's jurisdiction ralione personae as that State is not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights . It must, therefore, be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Commission . 3 . The application, however, relates essentially to the deprivation of liberty iniposed on him by .the Italian authorities . Moreover, it is established that the applicant was taken into custody by officers of the Italian police and deprived of his liberty in an Italian Air Force aeroplane . The applicant was accordingly from the time of being handed over in fact under the authority of the Italian State and thus within the "jurisdiction" of that country, even if this authority was in the circumstances exercised abroad (cf. Decision on the admissibility of Application No . 6780/74 and No . 6950/75 Cyprus v . Turkey . DR 2 p . 125) . 4 . With regard to the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty, it is established that an arrest warrant (mandato di cattura) had been issued against the applicant on 6 October 1978 by the Cantanzaro Court of Assize . This arrest warrant had been issued because the applicant had failed to comply with the duiy iniposed on him under Article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to leave the place of residence assigned to him . He was thus deprived of his libertv in ihe conditions specilied in Article 5(1) (b) of the Convention . The arrest warrant was executed by of5cers of the Italian police and its e .cecution was lawful under Italian law .
It does not appear to the Contmission that the co-operation occuring in this case between the Italian authorities and those of â¢Costa Rica involves any factor which could raise problems from the point of view of Article 5 of the Convention . The deprivation of liberty was thus carried out in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention . The fact that the arrest warrant was not served on the applicant until he left the aeroplane does not deprive the deprivation of liberty imposed on him of its legal basis in Italian law . 5 . With regard to the allegation that the applicant was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, the Comniission considers that he must have been aware thal in leaving the place of residence assigned to him he had failed to comply with the obligations imposed on him under Article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that this would necessarily give rise to an arrest warrant being issued in accordance with Anicles 272 and 292 of that Code . At all events . the above arrest warrant was served on the applicant upon his arrival in Rome . It follows that in the circumstances of the present case . and having regard in particular to what has been stated above, the applicant was informed of the reasons for his arrest in accordance with Article 5 (2) of the C'onvention . 6 . The applicant states that he had no remedy to enabling him to establish that his deprivation of liberty, as carried out by officers of the Italian policewâ¢as unlawful . In this respect he relies on Article 13 of the Convention .
Referring to this provision the applicant could (inter alia) have issued a writ against the State of Italy in the civil courts on the basis of Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code and could have argued that the acts performed by the ofticers of the Italian police were unlawful . The Commission concludes that the facts of the case as they have bee n .7 submitted to it do not reveal any appearance of a violation of Article 5 and 13 of the Convention and that the application must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 (2) . Now, therefore, the Commissio n
- 257 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 07/10/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page