Article 5-1-b
Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law
Detention for refusing to comply with order to reveal whereabouts of property attached to secure payment of tax debts: no violation
Facts – The applicant was detained for a period of 42 days after refusing to comply with an injunction issued by an Enforcement Authority requiring him to reveal the whereabouts of a sawmill which had been attached as security for his tax debts.
Law – Article 5-1(b): The Court reiterated that detention is authorised under sub-paragraph (b) of Article 5 – 1 only to ‘secure the fulfilment’ of the obligation prescribed by law. It follows that, at the very least, there must be an unfulfilled obligation incumbent on the person concerned and the arrest and detention must be for the purpose of securing its fulfilment and not punitive in character. As soon as the relevant obligation has been fulfilled, the basis for detention under Article 5 – 1 (b) ceases to exist.
In the instant case, it was clear that the applicant was detained for the purpose of securing the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law, namely, to tell the Enforcement Authority where he had hidden the sawmill. The circumstances of the case did not reveal any punitive or other character. It was also clear from the relevant provision of the Enforcement Code that the applicant would have been immediately released had he provided the information.
As regards proportionality, three points were relevant: the nature of the obligation arising from the relevant legislation including its underlying object and purpose; the person detained and the particular circumstances that had led to the detention; and the length of the detention.
As to the nature, object and purpose of the obligation, measures taken to facilitate the enforcement of tax debts and secure tax revenue to the State were in the general interest and of significant importance, especially when, as here, the debtor had sufficient assets to cover the debt but refused to pay. As regards the applicant’s situation and the circumstances in which he had been detained, he was not particularly vulnerable or otherwise unfit to be detained and had been aware of the possible consequences of not providing the required information. As to the third point, while the length of the detention (42 days) was relatively long, it was relevant that the applicant would have been released earlier, indeed immediately, had he provided the information. Moreover, adequate procedural guarantees were in place: the lawfulness and reasonableness of his continued detention was reviewed every other week by the domestic courts, the applicant was heard in person and he had a right of appeal. The deprivation of liberty had thus been proportionate.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
8307/11 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1306, [2014] ECHR 1437
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5-1-b
Human Rights
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538923
