{"id":3436,"date":"2025-08-05T11:27:44","date_gmt":"2025-08-05T11:27:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pietrzaksidor.pl\/?p=3436"},"modified":"2025-12-02T11:49:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T11:49:12","slug":"ecthr-the-detention-of-a-journalist-constituted-a-violation-of-the-right-to-liberty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pietrzaksidor.pl\/en\/ecthr-the-detention-of-a-journalist-constituted-a-violation-of-the-right-to-liberty\/","title":{"rendered":"ECtHR: The detention of a journalist constituted a violation of the right to liberty"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a judgment in a case brought against Poland by journalist Ewa Siedlecka. The Strasbourg Court held that her detention during a demonstration on 10 June 2017 constituted a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty and security). The applicant was represented before the Court by adv. Pawe\u0142 Osik of Pietrzak Sidor & Wsp\u00f3lnicy.<\/p>\n\n

\n

“This judgment should lead to strengthened protection for participants in peaceful assemblies. It calls into question the police practice of short-term detention. In implementing the judgment, Poland should focus on disseminating the Court\u2019s guidelines within the police. Where necessary, steps should be taken to change existing practices, provide training, and introduce new procedures and instructions” – explains adv. Pawe\u0142 Osik.<\/strong> “The Government should also assess whether there is a need to reinforce the legal provisions governing the use of coercive measures” he adds.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In Siedlecka v. Poland, the Court held that the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It found that the applicant\u2019s detention – which lasted approximately two hours – was not a deprivation of liberty \u201cprescribed by law\u201d under Article 5 \u00a7 1. In other words, it was unlawful. The Court further stressed that domestic law must protect individuals from arbitrary action by public authorities.<\/p>\n

The incident occurred eight years ago, during a counter-demonstration organised by the movement \u201cObywatele RP\u201d.<\/p>\n\n

The June 2017 Counter-Demonstration<\/h3>\n

During the gathering, the applicant and other protesters were removed and confined to the courtyard of a nearby building. The group was surrounded by a police cordon. Ms Siedlecka was not permitted to leave the area for approximately two hours. Throughout this time, her identity card was withheld, and her contact with the outside world – including with a lawyer present on the scene – was restricted. The police claimed that they were verifying protesters\u2019 identities and cross-checking information in police databases. Officers also informed her that she was \u201cnot detained\u201d but \u201cat the disposal of the police\u201d.<\/p>\n

The domestic court dismissed the complaint against the detention, upholding the police argument that no detention had occurred. This was likely the first instance of such a tactic being used – a practice that later became embedded in police operations.<\/p>\nFind more:\n