Lexploria

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

Menu

DE BIAGI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

DE BIAGI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI