The provisional detention order for an accused who was already abroad was unnecessary
JUDGMENT
Vasiliciuc v. The Republic of Moldava (no. 15944/11) 2-5-2017
SUMMARY
Provisional detention. Deportation. The decision to imprison a jewelery smuggler for the non-escape from Moldova was unnecessary since she was already in Greece, from which she was asked to be issued . Infringement of Article 5 (1c) of the ECHR.
PROVISION
Article 5 par. 1(c)
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Axenia Vasiliciuc, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959. She lives and works in Athens, Greece. The case concerned her complaint about a detention order issued against her by the Moldovan authorities for jewellery smuggling.
On 15 September 2008 Ms Vasiliciuc was stopped by Moldovan customs officers at Chisinau Airport when returning to Greece after a holiday and taken to the airport police station for failing to declare 29 items of jewellery. Before leaving for Greece again two weeks later, she obtained permission from the authorities to leave the country, signing a formal undertaking to appear before the prosecuting authorities as and when necessary and giving her Greek address and telephone number.
Criminal proceedings were formally brought against her in October 2008 for attempted jewellery smuggling and she was summoned to appear before the investigating authorities via her Moldovan address. Unaware of the criminal proceedings brought against her, Ms Vasiliciuc failed to appear. In June 2009, the prosecuting authorities thus applied to the courts for an order to detain her on the ground of her absconding. Referring to this detention order, the Moldovan authorities eventually, in July 2011, applied to Interpol for an international arrest warrant against her. As a result, around a month later, she was arrested in Greece and detained pending extradition. However, she was released 23 days later when the Greek courts rejected the Moldovan authorities’ extradition request seeing as there was no agreement between Moldova and Greece on requests to extradite suspects of offences connected to taxes, duties and customs. Ms Vasiliciuc has not apparently returned to Moldova since.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying in essence on Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security), Ms Vasiliciuc complained about the detention order against her, arguing that it had been unnecessary.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 890 (costs and expenses) legale steroide
