Unreasoned decision dismissing objections by applicant who was imprisoned pursuant to judgment not concerning him violated ECHR: Judgement against Greece

In Chamber's judgment dated 15.10.2024 in the case of Nsingi v. Greece (application no. 27985/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compensation for having been imprisoned pursuant to a sentence that had been handed down in respect of a different person, for whom he had been mistaken at the time of his arrest. 

On 6 June 2018 the applicant was arrested by the police and, after verification of his identity, was registered under the name of an individual who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for drug possession. The prosecutor ordered that he be sent to prison. 

On 20 June 2018 the applicant demanded that he be released, objecting that he was not the person who had been convicted and sentenced. The Criminal Court dismissed the applicant’s objections without giving reasons for its decision. 

The Court took the view that the complete lack of reasoning in the Thessaloniki Criminal Court’s judgment had clearly been in breach of the principle of protection against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the applicant was, at the time, imprisoned pursuant to a judgment imposing an eight-year prison sentence on a different person. 

As to the right to compensation provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), the Court pointed out that the Thessaloniki Criminal Court had dismissed the applicant’s claim on the ground that his situation did not fall under any of the cases mentioned in Article 533 of the CCP and that Article 564 of that Code did not secure a right to compensation for prisoners whose objections had been allowed. The Court therefore took the view that, in interpreting Article 533 of the CCP as it had, the Criminal Court had taken an overly formalistic approach that was not in keeping with the spirit of Article 5 § 5. (echr.coe.int/photo:freepik.com)

The judgement is available (in French) here

Comments

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)