CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 août 1999

.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 9 August 1999 Shishkov v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 38822/97 Decision 31.8.1999 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Applicant deprived of possibility of appealing against detention order: admissible The applicant was arrested in August 1997 on suspicion of having stolen jewellery and a large amount of money. His act was characterised, pursuant to the Criminal Code, as a serious crime. Shortly after being arrested he admitted the theft, directed the police to the persons who had bought the stolen jewellery and part of the money was returned. He was brought the next day before an assistant investigator who officially charged him and decided that he should be remanded in custody. The order, which was approved by a prosecutor the same day, relied on the danger of his absconding, or committing other crimes, without referring to any further details. In September 1997, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the detention order. It was rejected on the ground that it had not been lodged within the prescribed time-limit, although the applicant’s lawyer justified the lateness of the appeal by the fact that he had been refused access to the case-file. As a result, no further appeal could be made unless a change of circumstances occurred. In February 1998, he filed another appeal against his detention on remand. The District Court refused to release him, on the ground that the seriousness of the crime he was accused of required, pursuant to the Criminal Code of Procedure, that he be kept on remand. No mention was made as to whether there had been a change of circumstances since the first appeal. However, he was eventually released on bail in April 1998 on the grounds that, inter alia, he no longer risked to hinder justice since the investigation had been completed and that there was no danger of his absconding in view of his stable family situation. The case is however still pending before the District Court. Admissible under 5 § 1 (c), § 3 and § 4.   © 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