CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 décembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 82 January 2006 Jasiński v. Poland - 30865/96 Judgment 20.12.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of a judge who had on many occasions dealt with the applicant’s petitions for release: no violation   Article 5 Article 5-3 Judge or other officer exercising judicial power Independence of prosecutor ordering detention on remand: violation   Facts : The applicant was arrested by police on suspicion of burglary in January 1994. Two days later he was brought before a district prosecutor, charged with six counts of burglary and detained on remand. The prosecutor considered that there was a reasonable suspicion, given that the applicant had been arrested in flagrante delicto ; he also relied on the seriousness of the events in question. The applicant’s detention was continuously extended up to the conclusion of his trial in April 1995 (over fifteen months). The first two extensions (up until 8 April 1994) were ordered by the district prosecutor on the grounds that it was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, the likelihood of the applicant having committed other similar offences and the risk that he might hinder the gathering of evidence. Further extensions were granted in March and May 1994 by the District Court in view of the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the need for further forensic reports and the processing of fresh evidence to support further charges. In August 1994, a district judge, Z.R., extended the applicant’s detention, considering that the charge had a "sufficient degree of verisimilitude" and in view of the need to obtain evidence from psychiatrists of the applicant’s criminal responsibility. Shortly afterwards, the applicant was indicted on 22 charges of burglary. The applicant again sought his release, but his application was rejected by Z.R. and an appeal was unsuccessful. The trial was due to commence on 7 December 1994, with Z.R. presiding, but the applicant objected, arguing that due to his involvement in the proceedings, the judge lacked impartiality. His objection was dismissed by a panel of three judges. Z.R. again rejected a further application for release, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The applicant made two further, unsuccessful applications for release before his trial began in March 1995. At the end of the trial, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and a fine. Appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer were dismissed by the Regional Court in October 1995. Law : Article   5(3) – In previous judgments the Court has already dealt with the question whether under the Polish legislation in force at the material time a prosecutor could be regarded as a “judicial officer” endowed with attributes of “independence” and “impartiality”, and found that a prosecutor did not offer these necessary guarantees as he not only belonged to the executive branch of the State but also performed investigative and prosecution functions in criminal proceedings to which he was a party. Moreover, as guardians of the public interest they could not confer upon themselves the status of “officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   6(1) (impartial tribunal) – The applicant’s main complaint was that in view of the fact that the judge presiding his trial had made decisions on his detention both before and during the trial, he had formed a preconceived view on his conviction and sentence. However, he did not suggest that the judge had acted with any personal bias against him, and the sole issue to be determined was therefore whether the applicant’s fear of lack of impartiality was objectively justified. Whilst situations where a judge presiding over a trial had already dealt with a case at an earlier stage of the proceedings could occasion misgivings on the part of the accused, such misgivings could not in themselves be treated as objectively justified. In the judge’s initial decisions on the applicant’s continued detention there was no assessment by the judge that the applicant had committed the offences and they could not therefore be considered tantamount to a finding of guilt. In subsequent decisions, the judge relied repeatedly on two grounds, namely that the offences for which the applicant was charged were characterised by a high degree of danger to society and that he was criminally liable under the rules governing the so-called “relapse into crime”. Given that the applicant had been charged with numerous counts of burglary, it did not appear that neither of these statements or evaluations indicated any pre-conceived view by the judge that he had already pre-judged the future penalty or sentence to be imposed on the applicant. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court found that the finding of a violation of Article   5(3) constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court made an award for costs and expenses.   © 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