CASE OF SIEDLECKA v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the Siedlecka v. Poland decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Poland violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to liberty and security) concerning the arrest of Ewa Anna Siedlecka during a counter-demonstration in Warsaw. The Court determined that the applicant’s removal by police to a courtyard, where she was held for approximately two hours, constituted a deprivation of liberty. The Court concluded that this deprivation of liberty was not “prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1, because the government failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal basis in domestic law for the entire period of her detention. The Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints regarding violations of freedom of expression and assembly.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, explaining the case’s focus on the applicant’s alleged deprivation of liberty during a counter-demonstration.
* **Facts:** Details the events of June 10, 2017, including the applicant’s participation in the counter-demonstration, her removal by the police, and her subsequent detention in a courtyard. It also covers the applicant’s appeal to domestic courts, which was dismissed.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the applicable Polish laws, including the Code of Procedure for Administrative Offences, the Code of Administrative Offences, the Assemblies Act, the Police Act, and relevant articles of the Polish Constitution.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 1:** Examines the applicant’s claim that her detention violated her right to liberty and security under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Admissibility:** Assesses whether Article 5 is applicable, considering arguments from both the government and the applicant. The Court concludes that Article 5 is indeed applicable.
* **Merits:** Analyzes whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was justified under Article 5 § 1. The Court finds that the detention was not “prescribed by law” and therefore violated Article 5 § 1.
* **Alleged Violation of Articles 10 and 11:** Addresses the applicant’s complaints regarding freedom of expression and assembly. The Court declares these complaints inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* **Application of Article 41:** Discusses just satisfaction, awarding the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of Article 5 § 1.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Deprivation of Liberty:** The decision clarifies the distinction between a restriction of movement and a deprivation of liberty, emphasizing that the latter involves a greater degree of coercion and control.
* **”Prescribed by Law” Requirement:** The Court underscores that any deprivation of liberty must have a clear and foreseeable legal basis in domestic law, ensuring protection against arbitrariness.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The decision reiterates that applicants must raise their Convention-related complaints before domestic courts to allow national authorities the opportunity to address the alleged violations.
* **Short-term Detention:** The Court confirms that even relatively short periods of detention can constitute a deprivation of liberty under Article 5.
This decision highlights the importance of clear legal frameworks for police actions that restrict individual liberty during demonstrations and the need for domestic courts to address Convention-related complaints.
