Quick answer
In Guzzardi v. Italy (Plenary Court, 6 November 1980, application no. 7367/76), the European Court of Human Rights held that the compulsory residence of a suspected mafioso in a small, isolated area of an island under strict supervision amounted to a deprivation of liberty (by eleven votes to seven), and that this deprivation was not justified under Article 5 § 1, in violation of Article 5. The case is the seminal authority on the distinction between a deprivation of liberty and a mere restriction on freedom of movement.
Background and facts
Mr Guzzardi, suspected of belonging to a mafia-type organisation, was made subject to a preventive measure of “special supervision” with an order of compulsory residence. He was required to live for around sixteen months in a very small part of the island of Asinara, subject to numerous conditions: he could not leave the designated area, was under near-constant supervision, had to report to the authorities regularly, observe a curfew, and had only limited contact with the outside world and with others in a similar situation.
The complaint
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 that the special-supervision regime amounted to an unlawful deprivation of his liberty.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court explained that the difference between a deprivation of liberty and a restriction on liberty of movement is one of degree or intensity, and not of nature or substance. To determine whether someone has been deprived of liberty, the Court starts from the concrete situation and takes account of a range of criteria, including the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. A measure may not amount to a deprivation of liberty taken in isolation, yet may do so when its various elements are considered cumulatively.
Applying that approach, the Court found that the cumulative effect of the conditions imposed on Mr Guzzardi — confinement to a tiny and isolated area, near-permanent supervision, a curfew, reporting duties and severe limits on social contact, over a prolonged period — went beyond a mere restriction on movement and amounted, in the particular circumstances, to a deprivation of liberty. That deprivation did not fall within any of the permitted grounds listed in Article 5 § 1, and in particular could not be justified under sub-paragraph (e); there had therefore been a violation of Article 5.
The judgment
- by eleven votes to seven, that there had been a deprivation of liberty; and
- that the deprivation was not justified under Article 5 § 1, in violation of Article 5.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Guzzardi remains the leading authority on the threshold question of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. The “type, duration, effects and manner of implementation” test is applied whenever the Court has to decide whether measures such as house arrest, confinement to a zone, “kettling” of crowds, or detention in transit areas fall within Article 5 — as in later cases including Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom and De Tommaso v. Italy.
What this means for applicants
- Whether a measure engages Article 5 depends on the intensity of the restrictions, judged by their type, duration, effects and implementation.
- Cumulative conditions can amount to detention even where no single condition would.
- Any deprivation of liberty must fit a permitted ground in Article 5 § 1 or it is unlawful.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Guzzardi v. Italy decide?
The Court held that compulsory residence on a small, isolated part of an island under strict supervision amounted to a deprivation of liberty and was not justified under Article 5 § 1, in violation of Article 5.
What is the difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty?
It is a difference of degree or intensity, not of nature. The Court assesses the concrete situation by reference to the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure.
Why is Guzzardi important?
It is the leading authority on when a measure crosses the threshold into a “deprivation of liberty” and thus engages the guarantees of Article 5 — a test applied to house arrest, confinement zones and similar measures.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Del Río Prada v. Spain
- Kudła v. Poland
- Navalnyy v. Russia
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Aksoy v. Turkey
- A. and Others v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.