EMB v Romania - 4488/03 [2010] ECHR 1505 (28 September 2010)

EMB v Romania - 4488/03 [2010] ECHR 1505 (28 September 2010)

The applicant was not deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 as the arrest warrant was never enforced and her restriction of movement was a personal choice. The complaints under Article 5 were manifestly ill-founded. Complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (except for length of proceedings) were premature...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 1505
Parties
Applicant: E. M. B.; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
28 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Partial Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Partial admissibility; majority of application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Right to Liberty and Security, Presumption of Innocence, Right to a Fair Trial, Reasonable Time for Trial, Freedom of Movement, Discrimination
Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Right to Liberty and Security Presumption of Innocence Right to a Fair Trial Reasonable Time for Trial Freedom of Movement Discrimination

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. M. B.

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Partial Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the arrest warrant and related proceedings violated the applicant's rights under Articles 5, 6, 8, and 14 of the Convention and Protocols
  3. 3 Whether the criminal proceedings exceeded a reasonable duration

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 as the arrest warrant was never enforced and her restriction of movement was a personal choice. The complaints under Article 5 were manifestly ill-founded. Complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (except for length of proceedings) were premature due to ongoing domestic proceedings. Some Article 6 § 2 complaints were inadmissible for being out of time or manifestly ill-founded. The only admissible complaints were those concerning the length of proceedings and presumption of innocence in specific decisions, which were adjourned for further examination.

Court Disposition

Partial admissibility; majority of application declared inadmissible

Orders

  • Adjourned examination of complaints concerning breach of right to be tried within a reasonable time (Article 6 § 1) and breach of presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2) in relation to specific decisions.
  • Declared remainder of the application inadmissible.