Indeed, that Article lays down not only the right to “trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial” but also provides that “release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial” (see Jabłoński

  26772/95, §   153, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, and Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, §   80, 21   December 2000). 2.

Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for instance, Jabłoński

of alternative “preventive measures” – such as a written undertaking or bail – which were explicitly requested by the applicant (see paragraphs 11, 15, 17 and 29 above, and – for the case-law – see Jabłoński

pending trial are entitled to “special diligence” on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Abdoella v. the Netherlands , judgment of 25   November 1992, Series A no. 248-A, p. 17, § 24; Jabłoński

detention pending trial are entitled to “special diligence” on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Abdoella v. the Netherlands , judgment of 25 November 1992, Series A no. 248-A, p. 17, § 24; Jabłoński

Indeed, that Article lays down not only the right to “trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial” but also provides that “release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial” (see Jabłoński

only the right to “trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial” but also lays down that “release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial” (see, amongst other authorities, Jablonski

Switzerland , 21 October 1986, § 54, Series A no. 107) until the service of the decision on the applicant (see Jablonski v.

What is to be taken into account is diligence shown by the authorities, any delay attributable to the applicant, and any factors causing delay for which the State cannot be held responsible (see Jablonski

.; Jablonski   v. Poland , no.   33492/96, §   83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister   v. Austria , judgment of 27 June 1968, Series   A no.   8, §   4). 59.

When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v. Poland , no.

.; Jablonski   v. Poland , no.   33492/96, §   83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister   v. Austria , judgment of 27 June 1968, Series   A no.   8, §   4). 45.

/04 R.P.D., arrêt du 19/10/04 Hulewicz, arrêt du 30/03/04 R.W., arrêt du 15/07/03 I.P., arrêt du 14/10/03 Ratajczyk, arrêt du 18/07/06 Affaires Iżykowska, arrêt du 28/09/04 Rawa, arrêt du 14/01/03 Jablonska

account of his state of health, the authorities when deciding whether a person should be released or detained are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jabloński

When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jabłonski v. Poland , no.

Indeed, that Article lays down not only the right to “trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial” but also provides that “release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial” (see Jablonski

The decisions of the courts ordering pre-trial detention never addressed the question why these less restrictive means were considered insufficient in the present case (see Jablonski v.

Furthermore, when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v.