CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 octobre 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 23 October 2000 Grauslys v. Lithuania - 36743/97 Judgment 10.10.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Absence of legal basis for prolongation of detention on remand: violation Lack of precision in decision prolonging unlawful detention on remand: no violation Article 5-3 Brought promptly before judge or other officer Lithuanian reservation and non-retroactivity of requirement of “promptness” on expiry of the reservation: no violation Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Absence of proper review of lawfulness of detention: violation Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation Facts : The applicant was arrested in March 1996 and his detention on remand was authorised by a prosecutor the following day and subsequently extended on several occasions. The last extension was ordered by the Regional Court until 9 October 1996. The investigation ended on 27 September and the applicant’s co-accused had access to the file from then until 7   November; the applicant had access to the file from 3 to 31 October. He applied for bail on 30 October, complaining that his detention after 9 October was unlawful. The prosecutor replied that there were no grounds to vary the detention on remand and referred to the fact that the accused had had access to the file until 7 November and that the case had been transmitted for confirmation of the bill of indictment. At the relevant time, periods during which the accused had access to the file did not count as detention on remand. The applicant was committed for trial on 5 December 1996, when the District Court judge decided that the “remand shall remain unchanged”. The applicant’s subsequent application for bail was dismissed and the detention was extended for a further three months in January 1997;   no mention was made of his allegations of unlawful detention. He lodged appeals against the various decisions and the Regional Court ordered his release in February 1997. It gave no reasons and did not refer to the allegations of unlawful detention. At the time, no appeal against decisions ordering detention on remand was possible. No first instance judgment on the merits has been given yet. Law : Article 5 § 1 (9 October to 5 December) – The Court found in the case of Jėčius v. Lithuania (judgment of 31 July 2000) that neither access to the case file under the former provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the sole fact that the case had been transmitted to the court constituted a “lawful” basis for detention on remand under Article 5 of the Convention and that they could not prolong or replace the valid detention order required by domestic law. In the present case, no order was made by a court authorising the applicant’s detention between 9 October and 5 December 1996 and there was no other lawful basis for his detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 1 (from 5 December) – While in its decision of 5 December 1996 the District Court did not say that it “ordered” a new remand measure and did not specify which type of remand would remain unchanged, its meaning – that the applicant should remain in detention – must have been clear to him, given the context. The domestic court does not appear to have acted in bad faith or failed to apply the relevant domestic law correctly and it has not been established that the detention order was invalid in domestic law. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 3 – In view of the terms of Lithuania’s reservation, there was no obligation to bring the applicant promptly before a judge or other officer during the initial period of the his detention, from 25 March to 21 June 1996. Moreover, during the subsequent period of detention no new obligation arose to bring the applicant before a judge or other officer (cf. the above-mentioned Jėčius judgment). Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 4 – The decisions of the domestic courts did not include any reference to the applicant’s numerous appeals concerning the unlawfulness of his detention after 9 October 1996. Even in its decision to release the applicant, the Regional Court refused to examine his allegations because of the bar then in force under domestic law. Moreover, it did not give any reasons for ordering the applicant’s release and the release order could thus be interpreted as an acknowledgement that the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand was open to question. However, this did not constitute an adequate judicial response for the purposes of Article   5 § 4). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) – The proceedings have lasted five years and are still pending. They are complex, but the authorities have not shown diligence and no explanation has been provided as to what procedural steps have been taken since June 1998 to warrant a further two years. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court considered that there was no causal link between the violations and the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. It awarded him 40,000 litai (LTL) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes