489 citiri

În principiu, o detenție va fi legală dacă este realizată în conformitate cu un ordin al unei instanțe, astfel că o subsecventă anulare nu va afecta neapărat în mod retroactiv legalitatea detenției deja executate

In principle detention will be lawful if it is carried out pursuant to a court order, so a ‘subsequent finding of a superior domestic court that a lower court erred under domestic law in making the order will not necessarily retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention’. When deciding whether a fault subsequently discovered in a detention order makes the preceding detention unlawful, the Court makes a distinction between ex facie invalid detention orders and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court, the former being flawed by a ‘gross and obvious irregularity’ (nota de subsol 128: Mooren v Germany hudoc (2009), para. 75 GC. (Grand Chamber held (nine to eight) that the domestic court’s failure to set out facts and evidence in sufficient detail, as required by domestic law, did not render the detention unlawful, being a formal requirement only. The joint dissent took a stronger approach to Article 5(1) in the context of the case.) The concept of ‘gross and obvious irregularity’ is not clear, although it evidently required a high threshold and suggests arbitrariness, if not a degree of flagrancy. (…))

D. J. Harris, M. O’Boyle, E. P. Bates, C. M. Buckley
(Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, august 2018, la p. 305)

Back To Top