CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 juillet 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 20 July 2000 Barfuss v. the Czech Republic - 35848/97 Judgment 31.7.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand: violation Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation Facts : The applicant was arrested on 19 May 1994 on suspicion of fraud and his detention on remand was ordered. His detention was extended on several occasions, the courts relying in particular on the risk of his absconding. He also lodged numerous unsuccessful requests for release, including four constitutional complaints. He was convicted on 7 November 1997 and sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on 9 December 1997. Law : Article 5 § 3 – The period to be examined is three years, five months and nineteen days (19 May 1994 to 7 November 1997). There existed reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence, and the courts relied on the complexity of the investigation, the seriousness of the charges and the danger that the proceedings would be obstructed if the applicant were released, due to the risk of his absconding. The reasoning given in relation to the risk of absconding was relevant and sufficient to justify the deprivation of liberty. However, as regards the conduct of the proceedings, there were a number of delays of several months and, having regard to the circumstances of the case as a whole, special diligence was not displayed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 1 – The criminal proceedings lasted from 19 May 1994 until 26 March 1998, a period of three years, ten months and seven days. The case was of some complexity and the applicant contributed to the length, but neither factor justifies the overall length. On the other hand, various delays, for which no convincing explanation has been provided, were attributable to the authorities, and the period as a whole failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant CZK 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It 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