CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 octobre 2010

.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 134 October 2010 Knebl v. the Czech Republic - 20157/05 Judgment 28.10.2010 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Purely compensatory remedy for violation of the “speediness” requirement under Article   5 §   4: effective remedy Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia , of failure to comply with the requirement of “speediness” provided for in Article 5 §   4 of the Convention, in the context of a decision given regarding his request for release while he was in pre-trial detention. Law – Article 35 § 1: The Government had pleaded failure to exhaust domestic remedies, on the ground that the applicant should have brought an action for damages (Law no.   82/1998, as amended by Law no.   160/2006). The Court observed that several respondent States had argued in recent cases that an action for compensation based on liability of the national authorities constituted an effective remedy with regard, among other things, to the requirement of Article 5 § 4 that decisions be taken “speedily”. It also acknowledged that its case-law did not provide a clear answer and left the question largely open. Whilst underscoring the importance of preventive remedies, the Court conceded that it was difficult to put these in place where the length of examination of the lawfulness of detention was concerned. The time constraints imposed by the requirement that decisions be taken “speedily” were so strict that it appeared unlikely that an application could be made to yet another authority, during that period, with a view to expediting the review in question. Consequently, where the domestic courts failed to comply with that requirement, the Court considered that a compensatory remedy could in theory be regarded as effective on condition that it could result in a finding of a violation of the Convention and an award of appropriate redress, particularly for non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore, the Court did not see any reason why a compensatory remedy of that kind should not be examined by the civil courts. As the Court had previously held ( Vokurka v.   the Czech Republic (dec.), no.   40552/02, 16   October 2007) that the compensatory remedy introduced by Amendment Act no.   160/2006 could be regarded as effective with regard to the “reasonable-time” requirement under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, it saw no reason why that remedy could not be applied regarding speediness of a review of the lawfulness of detention within the meaning of Article 5 §   4. The Court pointed out, however, that as the Czech Constitutional Court could not take concrete measures with a view to expediting proceedings or award litigants any compensation, a constitutional remedy was not an adequate and effective remedy that had to be used in respect of a complaint regarding “speediness” within the meaning of Article 5 §   4. Conclusion : inadmissible (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies). The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 5 §   3 of the Convention, but that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   4 in that the applicant had not been heard in person.   © 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