CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 décembre 2000

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 25 December 2000 Jablonski v. Poland - 33492/96 Judgment 21.12.2000 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand: violation Article 5-4 Speediness of review Length of time taken to review lawfulness of detention: violation Facts : The applicant was arrested on 21 May 1992. His trial was adjourned on numerous occasions because he was either on hunger-strike or had inflicted injuries on himself. He was ultimately convicted on 28 February 1997. His appeal was dismissed and a cassation appeal was rejected as out of time. Throughout his detention on remand, he lodged regular requests for release, all of which were dismissed, the courts holding that the injuries did not justify release on health grounds, since they were self-inflicted and not life-threatening. On one occasion, the Regional Court requested the Supreme Court to prolong the detention and the latter's decision was served on the applicant 43 days later. Law : Article 5 § 3 – The applicant's detention lasted 4 years, 9 months and 7 days, of which 3   years, 9 months and 27 days after Poland's acceptance of the right of petition. The suspicion against the applicant may initially have justified his detention but could not constitute relevant and sufficient grounds for the whole period. Article 5 § 3 does not oblige the authorities to release a detainee on account of his state of health, this being a question for the national courts. On the other hand, when deciding whether a person should be released the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial. In this case, no consideration appears to have been given to the possibility of imposing other “preventive measures” expressly foreseen by Polish law. The courts did not give this consideration or refer to any risk of absconding;   no account was taken of the fact that with the passage of time and given the number and character of the applicant’s acts of self-aggression in prison, it became more and more acutely obvious that keeping him in detention no longer served the purpose of bringing him to “trial within a reasonable time”. Thus, his prolonged detention could not be considered “necessary” from the point of view of ensuring the due course of the proceedings and the reasons given were not sufficient to justify the length of the detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 4 – Although a period of 43 days may prima facie appear not to be excessive, it involved only one court and at the time of its decision the applicant had already spent in custody a period twice as long as the maximum term of pre-trial detention foreseen by Polish law. Furthermore, the Government did not plead that there were complex issues and this was not the case – the principal question was whether there were any exceptional, and exhaustively enumerated, legal grounds for the prolongation of pre-trial detention beyond the statutory time-limits. The authorities thus failed to decide “speedily” the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously) Article 6 § 1 – The proceedings lasted 5 years, 3 months and 19 days, of which 4 years, 4   months and 8 days after Poland's acceptance of the right of petition. Although the applicant's conduct contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings, it does not account for the entire length, for which the authorties must bear responsibility. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court considered that the applicant had not shown that the pecuniary loss he claimed had been caused by the length of his detention and dismissed his claim in that respect. It awarded him 25,000 zlotys (PLN) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of 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