Law and relevant articles quotations

(e) Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it:

Article 3. The applicant had had no history of psychopathology before being taken into police custody and there was no material in the file to suggest the existence of psychosomatic instability. He had explained in detail the humiliation that he had felt on being exposed wearing handcuffs publicly, at work in front of staff who had been his patients and around his home. In his case it could be reasonably assumed that there was a causal link between the treatment in question and the beginning of his psychopathological problems, which had been diagnosed two days after his release.

Successive medical reports had confirmed the fact that the applicant had sustained serious trauma following his period in police custody. He had particularly felt humiliated by his exposure to staff who had been his patients. His mental state had been irreversibly marked by the ordeal.

Moreover, on the date of his arrest, the applicant did not have a record that might have lead to fears for security and there was no evidence that he represented a danger for himself or for others or that he had committed criminal acts of self-destruction or violence against others. In particular the Government had given no explanation to justify the need for handcuffs in the present case.

In conclusion, the fact of exposing the applicant to public view wearing handcuffs at the time of his arrest and during the searches had been intended to arouse in him feeling of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his moral resistance.

In the particular circumstances of the case, the obligation to wear handcuffs had constituted degrading treatment.

Conclusion: violation.

Article 41. EUR 2,000 for all damage.

NOTES:

causal link - причинная связь

medical report - история болезни; медицинское заключение

sustained – длительный, непрерывный, продолжительный

mental state - психическое состояние

to mark - оставить след, пятно

ordeal - суровое испытание

record - документ, письменно зафиксированное свидетельство; письменное производство по делу

self-destruction - самоубийство; самоуничтожение

inferiority - чувство неполноценности

debasing - унижающий достоинство

(f) Read the text again and copy the sentences that contain the following phrases:

1) had had no history of psychopathology 2) no material in the file to suggest the existence of psychosomatic instability 3) the humiliation that he had felt 4) in front of staff who had been his patients 5) reasonably assumed 6) treatment in question 7) two days after his release.

(g) Translate the following sentences into Russian:

1) Moreover, on the date of his arrest, the applicant did not have a record that might have lead to fears for security and there was no evidence that he represented a danger for himself or for others or that he had committed criminal acts of self-destruction or violence against others. 2) In particular the Government had given no explanation to justify the need for handcuffs in the present case.

(h) Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words from the text:

In conclusion, the ______ of exposing the ______ to public view ______ handcuffs at the ______ of his arrest ______ during the searches ______ been intended to ______ in him feeling ______ fear, anguish and ______ capable of humiliating ______ debasing him and ______ breaking his moral ______. In the particular ______ of the case, ______ obligation to wear ______ had constituted degrading ______ .

Answer the questions and make a brief summary of the text:

1) What is case V about?

2) What kind of and how many offences had been mentioned in the case?

3) Which of the police officers’ measures were qualified as ‘violation’? Why?

4) What was the European Court of Human Rights final decision?

5) What is your opinion about what had happened?

6) What do you think about the European Court’s conclusion?

7) What would be your final judgment if you were an EC judge?

C ASE VI

Lawful Arrest or Detention

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Information note # 95 on the case-law of the Court, March 2007, Pages 11-12.

FACTS

(a) Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it:

Since the applicant attained the age of criminal responsibility he was convicted seven times, notably of murder, robberies and assaults, and spent only short periods outside prison. In 1986, the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention, since, according to experts, he was dangerous for the public and it was to be expected that he would repeat spontaneous acts of violence. Since 1991, the applicant, having served his full prison sentence, is remanded in preventive detention. At that time, the maximum term of preventive detention could not exceed ten years. In 1998, the Criminal Code was amended to the effect that the maximum period of preventive detention was abolished. In 2001, applying the new rule, the regional court dismissed the applicant’s motions to suspend on probation his placement in preventive detention. Having heard him in person, as well as the prison authorities, the prosecutor and an expert, the court found that it could not be expected that the applicant, if released, would not commit any serious offences. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. In his constitutional complaint he raised the issue of retroactive application of the amended Criminal Code provision which had led to his life-long imprisonment without any prospects of being released. In 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court, having consulted psychiatric experts and several prison directors, dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. It held, inter alia, that the absolute ban on the retroactivity of criminal laws imposed by the Basic Law did not cover the measures of correction and prevention provided for in the Criminal Code. It concluded that the legislator’s duty to protect the public against interference with its life, health and sexual integrity has outweighed the detainee’s reliance on continued application of the ten-year limit and that the retrospective application of the new rule had not been disproportionate.

NOTES:

preventive detention - превентивное заключение

by virtue of - в силу, на основании

retroactive application of law - применение закона с приданием ему обратной силы

legislative amendment – поправка законодательной власти

to attain the age of criminal responsibility – достичь возраста уголовной ответственности

to dismiss a motion - отклонять ходатайство

inter alia - между прочим

(b) Read the text again and copy the sentences that mean the following:

1) С тех пор, как заявитель достиг возраста уголовной ответственности он семь раз был приговорён к тюремному заключению, преимущественно за убийство, грабежи и разбойные нападения. 2) С 1991 заявитель, отбывший полный срок тюремного заключения, находится под стражей в камере предварительного заключения. 3) В 1998 в Уголовный Кодекс были внесены изменения с целью отмены максимального срока содержания в превентивном заключении. 4) Районный суд отклонил ходатайство заявителя прекратить его превентивное заключение с испытательным сроком. 5) В своей конституционной жалобе он поднял вопрос о применении положения изменённого Уголовного Кодекса с приданием ему обратной силы. 6) Федеральный Конституционный Суд, после консультаций с психиатрами и некоторыми директорами тюрем отклонил жалобу заявителя как необоснованную.

(c) Translate the following sentences into Russian:

1) In 1986, the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention, since, according to experts, he was dangerous for the public and it was to be expected that he would repeat spontaneous acts of violence. 2) Having heard him in person, as well as the prison authorities, the prosecutor and an expert, the court found that it could not be expected that the applicant, if released, would not commit any serious offences. 3) It held, inter alia, that the absolute ban on the retroactivity of criminal laws imposed by the Basic Law did not cover the measures of correction and prevention provided for in the Criminal Code. 4) It concluded that the legislator’s duty to protect the public against interference with its life, health and sexual integrity has outweighed the detainee’s reliance on continued application of the ten-year limit and that the retrospective application of the new rule had not been disproportionate.

(d) Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words from the text:

At that time, . . . . . . . . maximum term of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . detention could not . . . . . . . . . . . . . ten years. In . . . . . . . . . , the Criminal Code . . . . . . . . amended to the . . . . . . . . . . that the maximum . . . . . . . . . . . of preventive detention . . . . . . . . abolished. In 2001, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the new rule, . . . . . regional court dismissed . . . . . . . . . applicant’s motions to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . on probation his . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in preventive detention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . heard him in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , as well as . . . . . . . prison authorities, the . . . . . . . . . . . and an expert, . . . . . . court found that . . . . . . . could not be . . . . . . . . . . . . that the applicant, . . . . . released, would not . . . . . . . . . . . . any serious offences. . . . . . . . applicant appealed unsuccessfully.

(e) Match the English expressions with their Russian equivalents in the table:

1) prolongation 2) preventive detention 3) by virtue of 4) retroactive application of law 5) legislative amendment 6) attain the age of criminal responsibility 7) act of violence 8) to the effect 9) abolish 10) to dismiss a motion 11) to suspend on probation 12) in person 13) prosecutor 14) to raise the issue of 15) inter alia

a) приостанавливать; откладывать; (временно) прекращать с испытательным сроком b) отклонять ходатайство c) между прочим d) продление, продолжение, пролонгация e) превентивное заключение f) обвинитель, прокурор g) поднимать вопрос; проблему, составляющую предмет рассмотрения h) применение закона с приданием ему обратной силы i) поправка законодательной власти j) акт насилия k) для этой цели, для этого, с целью l) аннулировать, отменять, упразднять, объявлять недействительным m) достичь возраста уголовной ответственности n) в силу, на основании o) лично

Answer the questions and make a brief summary of the text:

1) What is case VI about?

2) Who is the case about?

3) Why is the person considered dangerous to the public by the courts?

4) What were the applicant’s motions? Why?

5) What was the European Court of Human Rights final decision?

6) What is your opinion about what had happened?

7) What do you think about the European Court’s conclusion?

8) What would be your final judgment if you were an EC judge?

C ASE VII

Discrimination

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Information note # 95 on the case-law of the Court, March 2007, Pages 23.

FACTS

(a) Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it:

Since the applicant entered Germany in 1979, he has been convicted some fifteen times, notably of theft and burglary. In 1996, he was sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on the expert report, the trial court further ordered the applicant’s preventive detention, considering that he was inclined to commit serious offences and was therefore dangerous for the public. In 1997, the municipal authorities ordered his expulsion to Bulgaria as soon as he had served his sentence and prohibited him from re-entering Germany for an indefinite duration in view of his criminal convictions. The prison declined several times the applicant’s request to undergo social therapy because he was liable to be expelled after having served his prison sentence. Since June 2003, when his prison sentence ended, he is remanded in preventive detention. In 2004, having heard the applicant and the experts, the regional court again decided that his continued preventive detention was still necessary as he was very likely to be recidivist. He appealed unsuccessfully.

NOTES:

foreign national - иностранный подданный

subject to - подлежащий (произведению какой-л. обработки)

imminent - надвигающийся, близкий, грозящий, нависший, неотвратимый, неизбежный, неминуемый

(b) Read the text again and copy the sentences that mean the following:

С тех пор как заявитель прибыл в Германию в 1979 году, он около пятнадцати раз привлекался к уголовной ответственности, в основном за кражу и кражу с проникновением во внутрь. В 1996 году, он был приговорён к восьми годам и шести месяцам лишения свободы. Основываясь на мнении специалистов, суд далее выдал ордер на содержание его в превентивном заключении, считая, что он склонен к совершению серьёзных преступлений и потому опасен для общества. В 1997 году городские власти выдали распоряжение о его высылке в Болгарию сразу же после отбывания срока заключения и запретили ему въезд в Германию на неопределённое время ввиду его преступных убеждений.

(c) Translate the following sentences into Russian:

The prison declined several times the applicant’s request to undergo social therapy because he was liable to be expelled after having served his prison sentence. Since June 2003, when his prison sentence ended, he is remanded in preventive detention. In 2004, having heard the applicant and the experts, the regional court again decided that his continued preventive detention was still necessary as he was very likely to be recidivist. He appealed unsuccessfully.

Answer the questions and make a brief summary of the text:

1) What is case VII about?

2) What kind of and how many offences had the convict committed?

3) What measures were taken against him? Why?

4) What was the municipal authorities’ order? Why?

5) What was the result of the applicant’s appeals?

6) What is your opinion about what had happened?

7) What do you think about the Court’s conclusion?

8) What would be your final judgment if you were an EC judge?

ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ 2