The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued a verdict in the Asanović v. Montenegro case and found a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
"In connection with the deprivation of liberty in question, the applicant submitted complaints to the Council for Civil Control of Police Work as well as to the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms. Both the Council and the Protector determined that the police's actions in the specific case were contrary to the regulations and that the applicant was illegal deprived of liberty. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court of Montenegro issued a decision dated July 11, 2018, rejecting the constitutional appeal, stating that there was no violation of the right to freedom and security from Article 5 of the Convention," the office's announcement states.
An investigation was launched against the applicant, who is a lawyer by profession, on suspicion of having committed the criminal offense of tax and contribution evasion.
The state prosecutor then gave a binding verbal order to the police officer by telephone to collect information from the applicant in his capacity as a citizen. The applicant could not be found at his residential address, nor could he be contacted by phone because it was switched off.
After the police officer informed the prosecutor about the aforementioned, he received a verbal order to find and detain the applicant, given that "there were grounds for suspicion that the applicant had fled, as he was aware that he had been reported to the police by the Tax Administration ".
On the same day, the applicant subsequently answered the phone call and informed the police officer that he would be in front of the Basic Court building in Podgorica.
On that occasion, a police officer served him with an "immediate" invitation to collect information from the citizen. The applicant was transported by a police vehicle with civilian plates to the police station, where he was detained after giving a statement. He signed the minutes of the hearing and the official note without comment. After that, he was taken to the competent prosecutor, where he was questioned as a suspect and where he was handed a criminal report with accompanying documentation. After the hearing, the applicant was released to defend himself.
Criminal proceedings are ongoing against the applicant for the criminal offense in question.
The applicant complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) due to unlawful deprivation of liberty and a violation of Article 13 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective legal remedy.
"The European Court found that the deprivation of liberty of the applicant was not in accordance with Articles 259 and 264 of the CPC and Article 23 of the Law on Advocacy, and was therefore illegal. Due to all of the above, the European Court found a violation of Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Convention , while rejecting the complaints about the violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The applicant did not ask for just satisfaction, nor did the European Court find it justified to sentence him," the announcement states.
Bonus video:
