Prisão preventiva no processo penal e no direito policial diante do artigo 5 da CEDH

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i3.609

Palavras-chave:

prisão preventiva, processo penal, direito à liberdade, prevenção, Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos.

Resumo

A prisão preventiva é um instrumento controverso de prevenção à criminalidade, regulada normalmente no direito policial e em alguns sistemas processuais penais. Em conformidade com o artigo 5 da CEDH, tal tema foi objeto de diversas decisões de debates no TEDH. Desde o caso Ciulla em 1989, o Tribunal adotou a posição de que o § 1 (b) do artigo 5 é aplicável na segregação preventiva da liberdade, requerendo que a prisão seja decretada em atenção aos requisitos determinados na legislação, se eles forem suficientemente específicos. Por outro lado, na visão do TEDH, o § 1 (b) do artigo 5 é inaplicável a ramos distintos do direito processual penal. Contudo, no julgamento de 22 de outubro de 2018, no caso S., V. e A. v. Dinamarca, o Tribunal Pleno adotou posição oposta, o que impõe a análise dos limites de aplicação da prisão preventiva.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Métricas

Carregando Métricas ...

Biografia do Autor

Arkadiusz Lach, Nicolaus Copernicus University

Head of Department of Criminal Procedure

Referências

Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) 1916. Available at https://danskelove.dk/retsplejeloven. Access on: September 15, 2021.

ANGEL Arthur R. et al. Preventive Detention: An Empirical Analysis. Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review, v. 6, n. 2, p. 290–396, 1971.

Archer v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [2020] EWHC 1567 (QB).

ASHWORTH Andrew, ZEDNER Lucia. Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure and Sanctions, Criminal Law and Philosophy, v. 2, n. 2, p. 21–51, 2008. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-007-9033-2

ASHWORTH Andrew, ZEDNER Lucia. Preventive Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung) 1873. Available at https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/8549/file/Austria_CPC_1975_am122019_de.pdf. Access on: September 15, 2021.

COLE David. Out of the Shadows: Preventive Detention, Suspected Terrorists and War, California Law Review, v. 97, p. 693–750, 2009.

CORRADO Michael L. Punishment and the Wild Beast of Prey: The Problem of Preventive Detention. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. v. 86, n. 3, p. 778- 814, 1996. http://doi.org/10.2307/1143937

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted on 4 November 1950. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680a2353. Access on: September 15, 2021.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Preparatory Work on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. DH 56 (10), Strasbourg, 8 August 1956.

Detention: Football Hooliganism–Preventive Detention–Ostendorf v Germany (15598/08). European Human Rights Law Review. v. 4, p. 428–432, 2013.

DUFF Anthony et al. The Trial on Trial: Volume 3: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial. London: Hart Publishing, 2007.

ENGELHART, Marc. Countering Terrorism at the Limits of Criminal Liability in Germany in: DYSON Matthew, VOGEL Benjamin (eds.). The Limits of Criminal Law. Anglo-German Concepts and Principles, Cambridge-Antwerp-Chicago, Intersentia, 2018, p. 435–466.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Austin and others v the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 March 2012, applications n 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Bljakaj and others v Croatia, judgment of 18 September 2014, application n. 74448/12.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Campbell and Hartley v the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, applications n. 12244/86, 12245/86 and 12383/86.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Ciulla v Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, application n. 11152/84.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Engel and others v the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, applications n. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72 and 5370/72.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom, judgment of 12 January 2010, application n. 4158/05.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Hannah Eiseman-Renyard and others v the United Kingdom, decision of 28 March 2019, application n. 57884/17.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Ireland v the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 December 1977, application n. 5310/71.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Ječius v Lithuania, judgment of 31 July 2000, application n. 34578/97

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Kotilainen v Finland, judgment of 17 December 2020, application n. 62439/12.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Kurt v Austria, judgment of 4 July 2019, application n. 62903/15.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Kurt v Austria, judgment of Grand Chamber of 15 June 2021, application n. 62903/15.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Labita v Italy, judgment of 6 April 2000, application n. 26772/95.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Lawless v Ireland (n. 3), judgment of 1 July 1961, application n. 332/57.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Matznetter v Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, application n. 2178/64.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. O’Hara v the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 October 2001, application n. 37555/97.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Osman v the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, application n. 23452/94.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Ostendorf v Germany, judgment of 7 March 2013, application n. 15598/08.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Peša v Croatia, judgment of 8 April 2010, application n. 40523/08.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Schwabe and M. G. v Germany, judgment of 1 December 2011, applications n. 8080/08 and 8577/08.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Shimovolos v Russia, judgment of 21 June 2011, application n. 30194/09.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHT. Steel and others v the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, application n. 24838/94.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. A. v France, judgment of 23 September 1998, 1/1998/904/1116.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. S., V., and A. v Denmark, judgment of 22 October 2018, applications n. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12.

French Code of Criminal Procedure (Code de procédure pénale) 1957, available at https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/8539/file/France_CPC_am022020_fr.pdf. Access on: September 15, 2021.

GALLI Francesca. The law on terrorism: The UK, France and Italy compared. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2015.

HARRIS David et al. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

HIRSCH BALLIN Marianne F. H. Anticipative Criminal Investigation. Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and in the United States, The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2012.

INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE. The IPN on the 25th anniversary of introducing of the Martial Law in Poland, https://ipn.gov.pl/en/news/221,The-IPN-on-the-25th-anniversary-of-introducing-of-the-Martial-Law-in-Poland.html, Access on: September 15, 2021.

KEYZER Patrick (ed.). Preventive Detention: Asking the Fundamental Questions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013.

KIRCHENGAST Tyrone. The Criminal Trial in Law and Discourse. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Law on Police Activities (Lov om politiets virksomhed) 2015. Available at https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/1270, Access on: September 15, 2021.

LAWRYSEN Laurens. Human Rights in a Positive State. Rethinking the Relationship between Positive and Negative Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland: Intersentia 2016.

LAZARUS Liora. Positive Obligations and Criminal Justice: Duties to Protect and Care? in: ZEDNER Lucia, ROBERTS Julian V. (eds.). Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 135–156.

LUDSIN Hallie. Preventive Detention and the Democratic State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

MERKEL Grischa. Detention before Trial and Civil Detention of Dangerous Individuals in: BROWN Darryl K., IONTCHEVA TURNER Jenia, WEISSER Bettina (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, p. 498–519.

MONTAGUE Phillip. Justifying Preventive Detention. Law and Philosophy, v. 18, n. 2, p. 173–185, 1999.

Police Act (Ustawa o Policji) 1990. Available at http://www.policja.pl/ftp/pliki/police_act.pdf, Access on: September 15, 2021.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents. Access on: September 15, 2021.

Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) 1997. Available at http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19970890555/U/D19970555Lj.pdf. Access on: September 15, 2021.

PRADEL Jean. Procédure Pénale. Paris: Cujas, 2015.

R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucester [2007] 2 AC 105.

R (on the application of Hicks and others) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, [2017] UKSC 9.

RAINEY Bernadette, WICKS Elizabeth, OVEY Clare. The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

STASCHEIT, Ulrich, HART, Dieter. Vorbeugehaft für Demonstranten? Kritische Justiz, v. 2, n. 1, p. 88–92, 1969.

STEINBRECHER Marie, WADHAM John. S, V and A against Denmark: Grand Chamber authorises preventive detention, European Human Rights Law Review, n. 1, p. 81–88, 2019.

VERVAELE John, A. E. Special Procedural Measures and Respect of Human Rights. General Report, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, v. 80, p. 75–123, 2009. http://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.801.0075

Downloads

Publicado

31.10.2021

Como Citar

Lach, A. (2021). Prisão preventiva no processo penal e no direito policial diante do artigo 5 da CEDH. Revista Brasileira De Direito Processual Penal, 7(3), 1597. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i3.609

Edição

Seção

DOSSIÊ: Liberdade pessoal do imputado e medidas cautelares restritivas à liberdade individual no processo penal