Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

RANINEN v. FINLANDPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: October 24, 1996

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

RANINEN v. FINLANDPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: October 24, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

      PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

                    and I. CABRAL BARRETO

     We regret that we are unable to agree with the Commission's

majority that Article 3 of the Convention has been violated. In our

view it is Article 8 of the Convention that has been violated. Our

reasons are the following.

     The recourse to physical force by keeping the applicant manacled

for the above-mentioned period may not have been made strictly

necessary by his own conduct on 18 June 1992 or previously.

Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of this case we cannot

find that the treatment to which he was subjected for some two hours

substantially diminished his human dignity or in any other way reached

the threshold of "degrading treatment" within the meaning of Article

3 of the Convention. In particular, we cannot find sufficient evidence

that the handcuffing was aimed at breaking his resistance towards

performing any kind of military or substitute service. We therefore

conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3.

     We consider, however, that the applicant's handcuffing on

18 June 1992 constituted an interference with his right to respect for

his private life within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 of the

Convention. For the reasons set out below, we need not examine whether

this interference was "in accordance with the law" and pursued one or

more of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 8 para. 2.

     It is conceded by the Government that the applicant's handcuffing

was "probably unnecessary". Indeed we cannot find that the reasons

therefor, as adduced by R and the military authorities in the course

of the Ombudsman's investigation, were relevant and sufficient for

concluding that the measure corresponded to a pressing social need and

was "necessary in a democratic society". We therefore consider, in

spite of the margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting State,

that the applicant's handcuffing was out of proportion and that,

therefore, Article 8 has been violated.

                                             (Or. English)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846