CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sF74FAE64 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s9A597DC0 { width:115.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40764/14 Miroslav NUOTA against the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   December 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 40764/14) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 July 2014 by a Czech national, Mr Miroslav Nuota, who was born in 1976 (“the applicant”) and who was represented by Ms L. Hrůšová, a lawyer practising in Pilsen; the decision to give notice of the application to the Czech Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention). The Applicant’s Detention 2.     On 3 February 2011 the police charged the applicant with fraud and the forgery and alteration of public documents, which he had allegedly committed on a large-scale in the Czech Republic and abroad. He was taken into custody. 3.     On 5 February 2011 the Pilsen District Court (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody. There were fears that he would abscond as he was facing a long term of imprisonment, had no permanent abode or ties to any place, had previously acted under false identities and had no assets but many debts. There were also fears that he would reoffend as he had allegedly committed the crimes he had been charged with over a long period of time; given that he had never been employed or had any other provable sources of income, it was suspected that his luxurious lifestyle had been funded by his criminal activity alone and there was little guarantee that, if released, he would behave otherwise. A written undertaking by him not to abscond was not accepted as surety. 4.     A complaint by the applicant about his pre-trial detention was dismissed on 1 March 2011 by the Pilsen Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). 5 .     On 7 March 2011 the District Court broadened the grounds for the applicant’s pre-trial detention to include fears that he would interfere with witnesses because he had been actively contacting and influencing the victim and other potential witnesses while in the remand prison. 6.     Another complaint by the applicant was dismissed on 24 March 2011. 7.     On 2 and 5 May 2011 the District Court and the prosecutor respectively decided to keep the applicant in custody on the three above-mentioned grounds. His complaints were dismissed. 8 .     Between 21 June 2011 and 28 November 2013, the District and Regional Courts dismissed thirteen applications for release filed by the applicant, along with the associated complaints. They observed, in particular, that, according to the account of one of the witnesses, the applicant had planned to flee, that he had previously used a large number of false identities, and that the grounds for his detention – except for that based on a fear of his interfering with witnesses, which ceased to be relevant in December 2011 –   had persisted and even strengthened since the number of criminal proceedings he was facing had grown, including some concerning particularly extensive fraudulent activities. On several occasions the applicant presented written undertakings, offers of bail, guarantees offered by third parties and proposals of supervision by a probation officer; all were refused as surety. In its decision of 16 January 2013, the Regional Court held that it had not considered any of these alternative measures as they would not have been adequate to replace his detention, given his previous lifestyle and the mode and extent of his criminal activity. 9.     The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 18 March 2014 (no. II. ÚS 605/14). Although it conceded that the relevance of the factual basis for pre-trial detention normally weakened over time, the court considered that, in the instant case, the national authorities had provided proper and detailed reasons for the specific and persisting circumstances on which they had relied when specifying the grounds for detention, while also justifying why they had not accepted alternative measures. Criminal proceedings against the applicant 10 .     Between February 2011 and 30 January 2012, the date of the applicant’s indictment, the prosecution gathered evidence, including expert reports, and requested judicial cooperation from Germany and Switzerland. 11 .     On 20 April 2012 the Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor for completion of the investigation; that decision was quashed by the Prague High Court on 15 May 2012. 12 .     On 24 May 2012 the Regional Court scheduled hearings from 23 to 26   July 2012 and from 30 July to 1 August 2012. The proceedings were subsequently adjourned on a number of occasions: to 22-24 October 2012, 29-31 October 2012, 13-14 December 2012, 18-21 February 2013, 25 ‑ 28   March 2013, 2-3 May 2013, 29 July-2 August 2013, 26-29   August 2013, 15 October 2013 and, ultimately, 25-28 November 2013. 13.     On 28 November 2013 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of continuing and particularly serious fraud, forgery of public documents and credit fraud. He was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment. An appeal and appeal on points of law subsequently lodged by him were dismissed on 16 June 2014 and 15 April 2015 respectively. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 14.     While the applicant relied on Articles 6, 7 and 13 of the Convention to complain about the length of his pre-trial detention, the Court is of the view that his complaint should instead be considered under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 15.     The general principles as regards Article 5 § 3 of the Convention have been summarised in the cases of Smatana v. the Czech Republic (no.   18642/04, §§ 101-03, 27 September 2007), and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016). 16.     The applicant’s detention lasted from 3 February 2011, when he was first deprived of his liberty, until 28 November 2013, the date of his conviction by the first-instance court, that is, almost two years and ten months. 17.     The Court first observes that the charges against the applicant related to large-scale fraudulent activities in the Czech Republic and abroad, and accepts that the reasonable suspicion against him was based on cogent evidence and that it persisted throughout the whole trial which eventually led to his conviction. 18.     The Court further notes that the applicant’s detention was subject to frequent review on a regular basis, as provided for by law, and also at the time of each of his thirteen applications for release. Having assessed all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, his personal and financial situation, his lifestyle and social ties, and his connections abroad, the courts found the detention justified. As soon as the risk of the applicant’s interfering with witnesses had passed, the authorities narrowed the detention grounds back down (see paragraph 8 above) to those relating to the danger that he might abscond and reoffend, the chances of which were considered to have, if anything, increased with time. The Court is satisfied that those grounds appear to have been based on the concrete facts of the case and that changes over the course of time were taken into account. 19.     Furthermore, the Court has held that 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 Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012). In the present case, the applicant on several occasions applied for alternative measures to detention but the courts did not consider them to be appropriate, owing to the circumstances of the case, namely: the gravity, nature and length of the criminal activity at issue and the applicant’s personal background and lifestyle (see paragraph 8 in fine above). 20.     The Court therefore concludes that the domestic courts gave relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s pre-trial detention and sufficiently considered alternative measures for ensuring his appearance at the trial. 21.     Concerning the requirement of special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, the Court notes that during the pre-trial investigation, which lasted for almost a year after the applicant’s detention (see paragraph 10 above), the authorities took numerous investigative steps, including requests for legal assistance from abroad. Having regard to the considerable complexity of the case, which involved an international element, the Court is of the view that the actions of the domestic authorities during that period can be considered as falling within the standard of special diligence. 22.     It is true that some delays occurred during the referral of the case to the court, resulting in the first hearing only taking place six months after the indictment, and that more than half of the time the applicant ultimately spent in detention (before his conviction) was during his trial. In this connection, the Court reiterates that under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention national judicial authorities are called upon to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time and that the proceedings are conducted with the requisite expedience. In the instant case, the Court is, however, ready to accept the Government’s submission that the length of the proceedings did not go beyond what may be considered reasonable, given the considerable complexity of the charges which concerned cross-border organised crime and required a large amount of evidence. The Court is satisfied, in particular, that the trial hearings were planned and scheduled within a reasonable time not exceeding two months and that each adjournment was duly justified, mainly by the need to take extensive evidence. 23.     In these circumstances, despite the relatively lengthy period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the Court concludes that his right to have his case examined with particular expedition could not unduly hinder the domestic authorities’ conscientious efforts to carry out their investigative tasks with proper care (compare, among other authorities, Sadegül Özdemir v.   Turkey , no. 61441/00, § 44, 2 August 2005, and Shabani v Switzerland , no.   29044/06, § 65, 5 November 2009). 24.     All in all, having regard to the fact that the domestic authorities gave relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the applicant’s pre-trial detention and displayed special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2023.     Martina Keller   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Deputy Registrar   President