[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF MARUSZAK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 11253/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 July
2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Maruszak v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 June 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 11253/07) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Robert
Maruszak (“the applicant”), on 15 February 2007.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged, that his pre-trial detention had exceeded a
“reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 §
3 of the Convention. He
also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the
allegedly unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against
him.
- On
16 January 2008 the
President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated decided
to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in Gdańsk
Remand Centre.
A. The applicant's pre-trial detention and criminal
proceedings against him
- On
24 November 2002 the applicant, who since 28 August 2002 had been
sought under a wanted notice, was arrested and remanded in custody on
suspicion that he had committed murder with three accomplices.
- The
applicant's pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by
decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
of 26 November 2002 and 6 February, 8 May, 29 July,
and 18 November 2003.
- The
domestic court justified the applicant's pre trial detention by
the existence of strong evidence against him and the likelihood that
a severe penalty would be imposed in the case. The court also noted
that it was necessary to carry out further investigations, such as
obtaining evidence from new witnesses, psychiatric reports on the
suspects and various forensic reports.
- Meanwhile,
on 14 July 2003 the applicant was indicted on charges of robbery,
manslaughter, distribution of drugs, assault and battery. There were
three other defendants in the applicant's case. The prosecutor asked
the trial court to examine sixty-four witnesses and to read out the
testimonies of another five witnesses.
- On
15 October 2003 the trial court decided that certain procedural
shortcomings had occurred in the proceedings and returned the bill of
indictment to the prosecutor. On 27 October 2003 a rectified bill of
indictment was filed with the court.
- The
first hearing in the applicant's case took place on 28 November 2003.
Subsequently, seventeen hearings were held by the trial court. One
hearing was adjourned due to the absence of defendants.
- Between
2 and 12 June 2004 the applicant was serving a prison sentence
imposed by the Gdańsk District Court in a separate case.
- On 8 October 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court
convicted the applicant on several counts and sentenced him to
fifteen years' imprisonment.
- Pending
appeal, the applicant's detention was extended by decisions of the
Gdańsk Regional Court of 23 November 2004 and of the Gdańsk
Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of 19 April and 20 July
2005.
- The
courts reiterated that there was strong evidence against the
applicant and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed
in the case. In addition, the authorities noted that for the above
reasons the applicable law allowed for a presumption of risk that the
applicant would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings and the
latter could only be ensured by applying the preventive measure in
question.
- Meanwhile,
on 22 June 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly quashed the
judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court in that part.
The first-instance judgment was upheld, however, with respect to a
few offences and in that connection the applicant was sentenced to
three years' imprisonment. The court deducted from the imposed
sentence the term of the applicant's detention preceding the
conviction, namely two years, six months and eighteen days comprising
two periods: from 24 November 2002 to 2 June 2004 and from
12 June 2004 to 22 June 2005.
- Subsequently,
the applicant's detention was extended by the decision of the Gdańsk
Court of Appeal of 20 July 2005 and then, by decisions of the Gdańsk
Regional Court of 25 October 2005, 21 February and
21 September 2006 (upheld on 11 October 2006 by the Gdańsk
Court of Appeal), 30 November 2006, 22 February 2007 (upheld on
6 March 2007), 22 May 2007 (upheld on 5 June 2007), 24 August and 30
October 2007.
- The
authorities continued to briefly reiterate the reasons previously
given to justify the applicant's detention. In decisions of 6 March
and 5 June 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal elaborated
in greater detail on the reasons for continuing to apply the measure
in question. The court noted that the decision to impose pre-trial
detention in connection with a criminal case involving several
co-defendants was taken in the light of the circumstances of the case
vis-à-vis the position of each individual defendant.
Thus, the fact that, in the instant case, a few of the applicant's
co-defendants had been released pending trial did not have any
bearing on the applicant's situation. Similarly, the court observed
that the argument that there was strong evidence against the
applicant, which had been relied on to justify the preventive
measure, did not undermine the principle of the presumption of
innocence in criminal proceedings. Finally, the court admitted that
the applicant's detention had been lengthy; however, its length was
considered proportionate to the penalty envisaged under domestic law
for the offences with which he had been charged.
- Meanwhile,
on 1 August 2006 and 12 April 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court
refused the applicant's request to have his detention lifted in view
of his allegedly difficult family situation.
- The
first hearing at the re-trial was held on 18 April 2006.
Subsequently, the first-instance court held twenty and adjourned two
hearings.
- In
the meantime, namely from 16 June 2006 to 29 May 2007 the
applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed by the Ostrów
Wielkopolski District Court in a separate case.
- On
30 November 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the
applicant of three offences and sentenced him to thirteen years'
imprisonment. The court deducted from the imposed sentence the term
of the applicant's detention from 3 December 2005 and 26 June 2006,
which added up to six months and twenty-two days.
- On
19 June 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the above
judgment, inter alia, in the part concerning two charges
against the applicant and remitted the case to the Regional Court in
that part. The first instance judgment was upheld, however, with
respect to one offence and in that connection the applicant was
sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The appellate court deducted
from the imposed sentence the term of the applicant's detention
preceding the conviction, namely one year, seven months and two days
comprising two periods: from 3 December 2005 until 16 June 2006
and from 29 May 2007 until 19 June 2008. It is unclear on which date
the applicant finished serving the remainder of his prison sentence.
The
applicant's criminal case is currently pending before the
first instance court and he remains in detention by virtue of
subsequent court decisions.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
1 August 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable
length of proceedings under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints
about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time
(Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy
w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki)
(“the 2004 Act”). The applicant submitted that his
criminal case had been pending before the Gdańsk Regional Court
for too long.
- On
20 September 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal rejected the
application on the ground that the applicant had not complied with
the procedural requirements, namely that he had failed to indicate
the circumstances of the case which would justify his claim.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Provisions pertaining to pre-trial detention
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of
pre-trial detention on remand
(aresztowanie
tymczasowe), the grounds for its
extension, release from detention and rules governing other,
so-called “preventive measures”
(środki zapobiegawcze)
are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Gołek
v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§
27-33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski
v. Poland,
no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
B. Remedies for the excessive length of judicial
proceedings
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the
applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's
decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no.
15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v.
Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and the judgment in
the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§
34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
C. Relevant statistical data concerning pre-trial
detention
- In
the framework of the procedure before the Committee of Ministers (see
paragraphs 30 and 32 below) the Polish Government supplied
statistical data concerning the number and the length of pre-trial
detentions ordered in the years 2005-2006 by the domestic courts. A
more detailed rendition of the relevant statistical data can be found
in the Court's judgment in the case of Kauczor (see Kauczor
v. Poland, no. 45219/06, § 28, 3 February 2009).
III. MEASURES TAKEN BY THE STATE TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF
PRE-TRIAL DETENTION
A. Recent amendments to the relevant legislation
29. A
number of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks
postępowania karnego), designed to
streamline criminal proceedings, entered into force on 20 June 2007
(Law of 9 May 2007 on amendments to
the Code of Criminal Procedure; Journal of Laws of 2007, No. 99, item
664; Ustawa o zmianie
ustawy - Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz niektórych
innych ustaw). Those amendments strengthened
the powers of the authorities to discipline the participants. A more
detailed rendition of the recent amendments to the legislation
can be found in the Court's judgment given in the case of Kauczor
v. Poland (see Kauczor v. Poland, cited above, §§
27 and 30-31).
B. Other measures
- According
to the information supplied by the Polish Government to the Committee
of Ministers, in addition the Polish trial courts and prosecution
authorities have undertaken a series of practical measures in order
to organise criminal proceedings in a more efficient manner, i.e. by
scheduling time-limits for hearings well in
advance, holding hearings on Saturdays or severing charges against
co-accused to separate proceedings under Article 34 §
3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
if the joint examination proves difficult and time-consuming.
31. On
17 May 2007 the Cabinet (Rada Ministrów)
adopted the “Plan of Actions of the Government for the
execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in
respect of Poland” (Program
Działań Rzqdu w sprawie wykonywania
wyroków Europejskiego
Trybunału Praw
Człowieka).
By virtue of that document
the
Minister of Justice was obliged to
disseminate among judges and prosecutors on a regular basis
information on the standards concerning the length of
pre-trial
detention stemming
from the Convention and the case-law of
the
Court in Polish cases and to include this topic in the programmes of
workshops and seminars for judges.
IV. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS
A. The Committee of Ministers
- On 6 June 2007 the Committee of Ministers adopted
an Interim Resolution concerning the judgments of the European Court
of Human Rights in 44 cases against Poland relating to the
excessive length of detention on remand (“the 2007
Resolution”). It concluded that the number of the Court's
judgments finding Poland in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention on account of the length of pre-trial detention revealed a
structural problem. A more detailed rendition of the 2007 Resolution
can be found in the Court's judgment given in the case of Kauczor
v. Poland (see Kauczor, cited above, § 34)
B. The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human
Rights
- On
20 June 2007 the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights
released the Memorandum to the Polish Government concerning, among
other issues, the use of the pre-trial detention in Poland. The
Commissioner referred to the fact that the Court had repeatedly found
violations of Article 5 § 3 in respect of Poland and stressed
that examples of cases brought to the Court where pre-trial detention
had lasted between 4 to 6 years were not uncommon. The Commissioner
urged the Polish authorities to review the application and
functioning of pre-trial detention in Polish law. A more detailed
rendition of the relevant parts of the memorandum can be found in the
above-mentioned Kauczor judgment (see Kauczor v. Poland,
cited above, § 35).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had
been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article 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
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
applicant's detention started on 24 November 2002, when he was
arrested on suspicion that he had committed murder with three
accomplices.
On 8
October 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant
on several counts and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment.
As from that date he was detained “after conviction by a
competent court”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a)
and, consequently, that period of his detention falls outside the
scope of Article 5 § 3 (cf. Kudła, cited above,
§ 104).
On 22
June 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly quashed the judgment
and remitted the case to the Regional Court in that part. The
first instance judgment was upheld, however, with respect to a
few offences and in that connection the applicant was sentenced to
three years' imprisonment. The court deducted from the imposed
sentence the term of the applicant's detention preceding the
conviction, namely two years, six months and eighteen days comprising
two periods: from 24 November 2002 to 2 June 2004
and from 12 June 2004 to 22 June 2005. As a result, on 3 December
2005 the applicant finished serving the remainder of his sentence.
Therefore, the period from 22 June until 3 December 2005 is covered
by Article 5 § 1 (a) and falls outside the scope of Article 5 §
3.
From
the latter date, however, until 30 November 2007, when the
applicant was convicted in the proceedings following the partial
quashing of the 8 October 2004 judgment, his detention again fell
within the ambit of Article 5 § 3.
From
30 November 2007, the applicant was again detained “after
conviction by a competent court”, within the meaning of Article
5 § 1 (a).
On 19
June 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment
in the part concerning two charges against the applicant and remitted
the case to the Regional Court in that part. The first-instance
judgment was upheld, however, with respect to one offence and in that
connection the applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
The appellate court deducted from the imposed sentence the term of
the applicant's detention preceding the conviction, namely one year,
seven months and two days comprising two periods: from 3 December
2005 until 16 June 2006 and from 29 May 2007 until 19 June
2008. Neither of the parties informed the Court of the date the
applicant finished serving the remainder of his prison sentence. It
appears, however, that soon after 19 June 2008 the applicant
regained his status as a detained person. In these circumstances the
Court cannot but assume that from 19 June 2008 onwards the
applicant's detention has been again covered by Article 5 § 3.
- In
parallel, namely from 2 until 12 June 2004 and from 26 June 2006
until 29 May 2007 the applicant served two separate prison sentences
which had been imposed on him in other criminal proceedings. These
terms, as being covered by Article 5 § 1 (a), must therefore be
subtracted from the period of the applicant's pre-trial detention for
the purposes of Article 5 § 3.
- Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration has so far amounted to
three years, ten months and twenty-seven days.
2. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
- The
applicant submitted that the length of his pre-trial detention had
been excessive and that the measure had not been sufficiently
justified by the authorities.
(b) The Government
- The
Government considered that the applicant's pre-trial detention had
satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 3. Throughout its
entire period it had been justified by “relevant” and
“sufficient” grounds, in particular the existence of a
reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences he had been
charged with. Moreover, the Government considered that the
applicant's protracted detention pending trial was justified by the
complex nature of the case and a genuine public interest requirement,
namely the fact that the applicant had been charged with serious
offences and was facing a lengthy prison sentence. Finally, the
Government noted that the applicant's pre-trial detention was
justified by the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and
tamper with evidence.
3. The Court's assessment
(a) General principles
- The
Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right “to
trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as
guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a
number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities,
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110
et seq, ECHR 2000 XI; and McKay v. the United
Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with
further references).
(b) Application of the above principles in
the present case
- In
their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the
reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on
three grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the offences with
which he had been charged, (2) the severity of the penalty to which
he was liable; (3) the need to secure the proper conduct of the
proceedings. As regards the latter, they did not, however, specify
any concrete grounds justifying their opinion beyond repetitive
statements that it was necessary to carry out further investigations
(see paragraphs 8 and 15 above).
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed serious offences could initially warrant his
detention. Also, the need to secure the proper conduct of the
proceedings, in particular the process of obtaining evidence from
witnesses, constituted valid grounds for the applicant initial
detention.
- However,
with the passage of time, those grounds became less and less
relevant. The Court must then establish whether the other grounds
adduced by the courts – namely, the severity of the anticipated
sentence and the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and
tamper with evidence were “sufficient” and
“relevant” (see, Kudła cited above, §
111).
According
to the authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed
on the applicant created a presumption that the applicant would
obstruct the proceedings (see paragraph 15 above). However, the Court
would reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a
relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or
re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify
long periods of detention on remand (see Michta v. Poland,
no. 13425/02, §§ 49, 4 May 2006).
- As
regards the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings
and tamper with evidence, the authorities have relied on the fact
that the proceedings against the applicant involved a large number of
witnesses and several co-defendants. They never suggested, however,
that the applicant himself had undertaken any measures to obstruct
the proceedings in a particular manner.
- Having
regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the grounds given
by the domestic authorities could not justify the overall period of
the applicant's detention. In these circumstances it is not necessary
to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with special
diligence.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
II. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings was
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
However,
pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law ...”
- In
this connection, the Court observes that the applicant attempted to
avail himself of the new Polish remedy for the excessive length of
proceedings (“the 2004 Act”). His complaint, however, was
not examined on the merits. On 20 September 2007 the Gdańsk
Court of Appeal rejected the application on the ground that the
applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements, namely,
that he had failed to indicate the circumstances of the case which
would justify his claim.
Accordingly, the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies in
respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
as his application under the 2004 Act failed due to his procedural
mistake and he did not take the opportunity to lodge a new complaint
under the 2004 Act, this time in compliance with the procedural
requirements.
- The
Court has already examined that remedy for the purposes of
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and found it
effective in respect of complaints about the excessive length of
judicial proceedings in Poland. In particular, the Court considered
that the remedy was capable both of preventing the alleged violation
of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its
continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation
that has already occurred (see Charzyński v. Poland
(dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42).
51. It
follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
46 of the Convention provides:
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to
abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they
are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be
transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its
execution.”
A. The parties' submissions
1. The applicant
- The
applicant did not submit any observations concerning this provision.
2. The Government
- The Government submitted that
the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention had not been
excessive considering the complexity of the case. Therefore, the
length of the measure in question did not reveal the existence of a
structural problem. They further stressed that Polish law was
compatible with the standards of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
- Maintaining
that the number of cases in which the domestic courts had ordered
detention on remand lasting from twelve months to two years or longer
was decreasing, the Government made reference to the statistical data
for 2005-2007 which they submitted to the Court. They further
stressed that the awareness of courts of the standards concerning the
length of the detention on remand was growing.
- They
also suggested that the fact that the Court had already given many
judgments finding a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
should not lead to the automatic application of Article 46, as had
occurred in the case of Scordino v.
Italy. The Polish authorities had
taken many general and individual measures based on the conclusions
stemming from the Court's judgments finding that the length of the
detention on remand had been excessive. In particular, on 17 May 2007
the Cabinet adopted the “Plan of Actions of the Government for
the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in
respect of Poland” (see paragraph 31 above).
- The
Government concluded that, bearing in mind the efforts of the Polish
authorities and the legislative reforms which were and had been
undertaken by them to solve the problem of the length of detention on
remand, Poland could not be said to have failed to comply with its
obligations under Article 46 of the Convention to obey the Court's
judgments.
B. The Court's assessment
- Recently,
in the case of Kauczor v. Poland (see Kauczor, cited
above, § 58 et seq. with further references) the Court held that
the 2007 Resolution taken together with the number of judgments
already delivered and of the pending cases raising an issue of
excessive detention incompatible with Article 5 § 3 demonstrated
that the violation of the applicant's right under Article 5 § 3
of the Convention had originated in a widespread problem arising out
of the malfunctioning of the Polish criminal justice system which had
affected, and may still affect in the future, an as yet unidentified,
but potentially considerable number of persons charged in criminal
proceedings.
It
concluded, as the Committee of Ministers had already done, that for
many years, at least as recently as in 2007, the excessive length of
pre-trial detention in Poland revealed a structural problem
consisting of “a practice that is incompatible with the
Convention” (see Kauczor, cited above, § 60; and,
mutatis mutandis, Broniowski v. Poland [GC],
no. 31443/96, §§ 190 191, ECHR 2004 V;
Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 229-231, ECHR 2006 ...; Bottazzi v.
Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999 V
with respect to the Italian length of proceedings cases).
- In
Kauczor the Court noted that the respondent State has already
taken certain steps to remedy the structural problems related to
pre-trial detention (see paragraphs 23-25 above). It stressed,
however, that in view of the extent of the systemic problem at issue,
consistent and long-term efforts, such as adoption of further
measures, must continue in order to achieve compliance with Article 5
§ 3 of the Convention (see Kauczor v. Poland, cited
above, § 62).
- In
the present case, as in other numerous similar detention cases, the
authorities did not justify the applicant's continued detention by
relevant and sufficient reasons (see paragraphs 43-47 above).
Consequently, the Court sees no reason to diverge from its findings
made in Kauczor
as to the existence of a structural problem and the need for the
Polish State to adopt measures to remedy the situation (see Kauczor,
cited above, §§ 60-62 ).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The
applicant submitted his claim for just satisfaction outside the
time-limit prescribed by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers
that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 3
of the Convention concerning the length of the applicant's detention
admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention.
Done
in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
