CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 mars 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s39E03130 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; display:none } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FB79571 { width:14.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE94AE824 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s6495A1EA { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     181   25.3.1999.   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MUSIAŁ v. POLAND       In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 25 March 1999 in the case of Musiał v. Poland (application no.   24557/94), the European Court of Human Rights held by 16 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant a specified sum for non-pecuniary damage.     1.   Principal facts     The applicant, Zbigniew Musiał, a Polish national, was born in 1953 and lives in Jastrzębie Zdrój, Poland.     On 16 March 1993 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the Katowice Regional Court for the applicant’s release from the psychiatric hospital where he had been detained since 1988. He had been committed after criminal proceedings for the manslaughter of his wife had been discontinued on the grounds that he was not criminally responsible.   The applicant’s lawyer insisted that he should be examined by psychiatrists from the University of Cracow rather than by experts from the hospital where he was detained. On 26   April 1993 the court agreed to this request and on 22 September 1993 the applicant’s medical records were forwarded to Cracow University. From 31 January 1994 to 4 February 1994 the applicant underwent an examination at Cracow University.     In an opinion of 30 November 1994 the psychiatrists from Cracow University stated that the applicant’s condition necessitated further detention as the grounds on which his committal to a psychiatric institution had been ordered had not ceased to exist.     On 9 January 1995, having considered the medical opinion of 30 November 1994, the Katowice Regional Court decided that the applicant’s detention should be continued.     2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The application to the Commission, which was lodged on 10 January 1994, was declared partly admissible on 6 September 1995.     Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on 4 March 1998 in which it expressed the opinion, by thirteen votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4     The Polish Government and the applicant brought the case before the Court.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the new European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998.     Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber composed of 17   judges, namely:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Nicolas Bratza (British), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Benedetto Conforti (Italian), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),   and also of Michele de Salvia , Registrar.     3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaint     The applicant complained that the proceedings seeking a judicial review of his psychiatric detention, instituted by his request of 16 March 1993, were unreasonably long and that his right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention, guaranteed under Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has thereby been breached.   Decision of the Court     Article 5 § 4 of the Convention     The Court considered that a lapse of time of one year, eight months and eight days was incompatible with the notion of speedy judicial review within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, unless there were exceptional grounds to justify it.     The Court considered that there were no grounds in the circumstances of the present case for departing from the usual principle that the primary responsibility for delays resulting from the provision of expert opinions rests ultimately with the State. It further considered that the complexity of a medical case could not absolve national authorities from their essential obligations under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and that it has not been shown that in the present case there was a causal link between the complexity of the medical issues which might arguably have been involved in the assessment of the applicant’s condition and the delay in the preparation of the expert opinion.     The Court also noted that the Katowice Regional Court, when giving its decision of 9 January 1995 to continue the applicant’s detention, had regard to the medical opinion of 30 November 1994 prepared on the basis of the applicant’s clinical examination which had taken place from 30 January to 4 February 1994. Therefore, the decision was based on medical information which did not necessarily reflect the applicant’s actual condition. In the Court’s opinion,   such a delay between clinical examination and preparation of a medical report is in itself capable of running counter to the principle underlying Article 5 of the Convention, namely the protection of individuals against arbitrariness as regards any measure depriving them of their liberty.     The Court concluded that in the contested proceedings the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was not decided speedily as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.     Article 41 of the Convention     The Court acknowledged that the applicant suffered prejudice of a non-pecuniary nature as a result of the length of the proceedings by which he sought termination of his confinement.   In the circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awarded the applicant 15 000 Polish zlotys as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.     As regards costs and expenses, the Court, having considered that the applicant, who had received legal aid from the Council of Europe in connection with his legal representation in the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, did not submit any details of any costs incurred over and above the amounts received in legal aid, rejected his claim for reimbursement of legal costs.     Judge Pastor Ridruejo expressed a dissenting opinion that is annexed to the judgment.     The judgment will be published shortly in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 (obtainable from Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Luxemburger Straße 449, D-50939 Köln). Judgments are available on the day of delivery on the Court’s Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr)     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Roderick Liddell Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   [1] .     This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.