CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juin 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 19 June 2000 Český v. the Czech Republic - 33644/96 Judgment 6.6.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand: violation Facts : The case concerns the length of the applicant’s detention on remand. He was arrested in Italy in February 1991, having been released on probation after serving part of a prison sentence in the Czech Republic. His detention on remand was prolonged several times and numerous requests for release were unsuccessful. He was convicted on five occasions, but each time the conviction was quashed. An appeal is pending. Law : Article 5 § 3 - The periods of detention on remand to be examined total 3 years, 3   months and 7 days. There was reasonable suspicion of an offence and the reasons given by the domestic courts concerning the risk of absconding were sufficient and relevant, making it unnecessary to examine the other grounds invoked. However, in view of various delays, special diligence was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 - As an appeal is pending, it cannot be said that the length of the detention on remand has been deducted from the sentence. Even assuming the applicant did not have permanent employment at the time of his arrest, there is a certain causal link between the violation and the sums he claims in respect of loss of earnings. The Court therefore awarded him 100,000 CZK in that respect. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Finally, it 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