The applicant, Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras, is a Greek national. He was captain of the ship Prestige which, while travelling off the Spanish coast in November 2002, spilled 70,000 tonnes of fuel from a leak in its hull. The spillage caused an ecological catastrophe.

The applicant was remanded in custody for offences against the environment and natural resources. His bail was fixed at three million euros. The investigating judge said that, although the oil-spill had been accidental, the applicant had demonstrated a lack of cooperation with the port authorities when they tried to take the vessel in tow.

The applicant relied on Article 5(3) (right to liberty and security):

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

The applicant complained that the amount of bail he was required to pay was disproportionately high.

However, it was held that article 5(3) of the Convention had not been violated.

The European Court of Human Rights had to consider whether the amount of bail demanded was proportionate to counteracting the temptation of the accused not to attend court proceedings. Therefore, the nature of the offence was relevant.

Against that background, the Court stated that it could not ignore the growing and legitimate concern existing at the European and the international level with regard to crimes against the environment. It took into account the powers and obligations of States concerning maritime pollution and the unanimous interest of States and of European and international organizations in identifying those responsible and securing their presence at court proceedings.

This involved taking into account the individual circumstances of the case, namely the special nature of the offences committed in the context of a “hierarchy of responsibilities” specific to the law of the sea, which distinguished this case from others in which the Court has had to assess the duration of provisional detention.

In light of this, the Court concluded that the Spanish national authorities had sufficiently justified its interference with the applicant’s right to liberty and security. It took the view that the seriousness of the natural catastrophe justified the Spanish courts’ concern to determine who was responsible for it, and that it was accordingly reasonable for them to try to ensure that the applicant would appear to stand trial by fixing a high level of bail.

Consequently, it held that the amount of bail demanded, although high, had not been disproportionate – taking into account the legal interest being protected, the seriousness of the offence and the environmental and economic consequences resulting from the oil spillage.

This case therefore demonstrates the strong public interest in the protection of the maritime environment.