Information Note on the Court’s case-law 153

June 2012

Piruzyan v. Armenia - 33376/07

Judgment 26.6.2012 [Section III]

Article 5

Article 5-3

Guarantees to appear for trial

Statutory prohibition on release on bail for persons accused of particular classes of offence: violation

Facts – The applicant was arrested in October 2006 and detained on a charge of banditry. His detention was subsequently extended severa l times on the grounds that he was liable to abscond or obstruct the investigation, and that further investigative measures were necessary and the proceedings were still pending. The applicant was also refused bail on the grounds that he was accused of an offence classified under domestic law as a “grave crime” and so was precluded by Article 143 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from applying for bail, which could be ordered only in respect of persons accused of crimes of “minor or medium gravity”. The applicant was eventually released in December 2007 after the charges against him were dropped.

Law – Article 5 § 3

(a) Impossibility of release on bail – When deciding whether to release or detain a suspect, the authorities were obliged to consider alter native measures to ensure his or her appearance at trial. The Court had previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in a number of cases in which an application for bail was refused automatically by virtue of domestic law. In the instan t case, the applicant’s requests were dismissed on the ground that Article 143 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure precluded release on bail for offences classified as grave or particularly grave. Such automatic rejection of the applicant’s bail applicat ions, devoid of any judicial control of the particular circumstances of his detention, was incompatible with the guarantees of Article 5 § 3.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

(b) Reasons for continued detention – In order to justify the applicant’s su ccessive remands in custody, the domestic courts had relied, firstly, on the risk of his absconding and obstructing the proceedings and, secondly, on the fact that the investigation was not yet complete and the proceedings were still pending. As to this la tter point, the Court pointed out that the need to carry out further investigations or the fact that the proceedings had not yet been completed did not fall within any of the acceptable reasons for detaining a person pending trial for the purposes of Artic le 5 § 3. As to the risk of the applicant’s absconding or obstructing the proceedings, the domestic courts had confined themselves to repeating these grounds in their decisions in an abstract and stereotyped way, without indicating why they considered them to be well-founded. A general reference to the serious nature of the offence with which the applicant had been charged could not be considered sufficient justification. The domestic courts had therefore failed to give “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the detention.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

The Court also found a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s placement in a metal cage during hearings; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the lack of a legal basis for the applicant’s detention between 19 February and 12 March 2007; and two violations of Article 5 § 4 on account of a failure to ensure adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, and on account of a refusal to examine an appeal against detention on the sole ground that the criminal case was no longer considered to be at the pre-trial stage.

Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.

© 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