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 Vodeničarov v. Slovakia - 24530/94 Judgment 21.12.2000 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Absence of proper and speedy review of lawfulness of detention: violation Facts : The applicant was charged with assault. Two hearings in the District Court were disrupted by his behaviour and the second proceeded in his absence. He was convicted and his appeal was rejected. He was subsequently charged with contempt of court and the District Court ordered his psychiatric examination. He applied to the Constitutional Court, which replied that it was not an appellate body in the ordinary court system. In the meantime, the District Court had on 15 July 1995 ordered the applicant's detention in a mental hospital for observation and, despite having challenged the order, he was handcuffed and taken there by the police. The challenge was eventually dismissed on 17 August 1995. His wife had also lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General's Office. No final decision has been taken in that respect. Law : Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) – The Court joined the preliminary objection to the merits. Article 5 § 4 – The applicant was detained on the basis of an order which had not become effective, since his objection was pending. Thus, although the law provided for a review of the lawfulness of detention, the procedure initiated by the applicant was disregarded by the authorities. The review was not carried out "speedily". As to the argument that the applicant could have sought redress before the public prosecutor (S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), this remedy does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4 as the procedure followed is not judicial in character. As for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Court was not convinced that the applicant could have been reasonably expected to file a constitutional petition while the proceedings concerning his ordinary remedy – which did in principle comply with Article 5 § 4 – were pending. The one case relied on by the Government concerned a different situation and has never been confirmed or developed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court found no causal link between the violation and the pecuniary loss claimed by the applicant. It awarded him 60,000 SKK in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs.   © 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