CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 1995

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. July 1995 Kampanis v. Greece - 17977/91 Judgment 13.7.1995 Article 5 Article 5-4 Procedural guarantees of review Review of lawfulness of detention Refusal by Indictment Division of a court of appeal to give a prisoner leave to appear in order to present argument in support of his application for release: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Not necessary for Court to consider of its own motion the proceedings relating to the application for release of 18 September 1990. II.   ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION The only applications for leave to appear that could be taken into account were the ones lodged by applicant on 18 December 1990, 30   January 1991 and 29 March 1991. A.   Application of 18 December 1990 Applicant had failed to comply with time-limit laid down by relevant national law - could not therefore complain of infringement of principle of equality of arms in connection with those proceedings. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). B.   Application of 30 January 1991 Prosecutor's written submissions had called for refusal of applicant's applications for release and for leave to appear - Indictment Division had ruled accordingly, although applicant had not seen those submissions and had consequently not been able to reply to them either in writing or orally. Applicant had been in prison for twenty-five months and ten days pursuant to three successive orders, each of which had fixed a different starting-point for calculation of his detention on remand - prolongation of detention in two of those cases up to maximum permitted under Constitution. To ensure equality of arms it was necessary to give applicant opportunity to appear at same time as prosecutor so that he could reply to his arguments. Inadequate opportunity to participate in proceedings whose outcome determined whether detention was to continue or be terminated. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). C.   Application of 29 March 1991 Applicant given leave to appear before Indictment Division while prosecutor was present and to file further observations. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: claim rejected. Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses Costs incurred in connection with application for release of 30 January 1991 and before Convention institutions: reimbursement of a reasonable sum. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant a specified sum (unanimously).   © 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