EIT:n suuri jaosto: Italian lainsäädäntö yksilöllisen ennakkoturvaamistoimenpiteen osalta liian väljä

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto on tuoreessa tuomiossaan katsonut, että Italian lainsäädäntö tietyntyyppisen ennakkoturvaamistoimenpiteen osalta – jonka nojalla valittaja oli määrätty kahdeksi vuodeksi poliisin valvontaan ja mm. olemaan poistumatta tietyltä alueelta – oli väljä ja ennalta arvaamaton. Tapauksessa oli loukattu mm. valittajan liikkumisvapautta (4 lisäpöytäkirja 2 artikla).

Valittaja oli lainsäädännön perusteella määrätty mm. “elämään kunniallista ja lainkuuliaista elämää” ja häntä oli kielletty “epäilyksen herättämisestä” (to “lead an honest and law-abiding life” and to “not give cause for suspicion”. EIT katsoi, että mainitunlaiset määräykset jättivät tuomioistuimelle suuren harkintavallan ilman, että valittaja olisi pystynyt ennakoimaan tulkintoja.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In [a] Grand Chamber judgment in the case of de Tommaso v. Italy (application no. 43395/09) the European Court of Human Rights held:

– unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the lack of foreseeability of the relevant Act, and a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing in the Bari District Court and Court of Appeal;
– by fourteen votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing); and
– by twelve votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The case concerned preventive measures imposed for a duration of two years on the applicant, who complained of a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).

The Court found, firstly, that the obligations imposed on Mr de Tommaso had not amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, but merely to restrictions on his freedom of movement.

Next, the Court held that Act no. 1423/1956, the statutory instrument forming the basis of the individual preventive measures imposed on Mr de Tommaso, had satisfied the requirement of accessibility. However, it found that the Act in question had afforded the courts a wide discretion without providing a sufficiently clear indication of the scope or manner of exercise of such discretion. The imposition of preventive measures had not been sufficiently foreseeable and had not been accompanied by adequate safeguards against the various possible abuses. Having been couched in vague and excessively broad terms, the Act had not satisfied the foreseeability requirements established in the Court’s case-law.

With regard to the fairness of the proceedings, the Court considered that the proceedings as a whole had been conducted in accordance with the requirements of a fair hearing, but noted that the Government had acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the hearings in the Bari District Court and Court of Appeal had not been public. It also observed that the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Act that had not afforded individuals the opportunity to request a public hearing in proceedings for the application of preventive measures.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here