CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 octobre 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 23 October 2000 Grauzinis v. Lithuania - 37975/97 Judgment 10.10.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-4 Procedural guarantees of review Hearings on prolongation of detention on remand held in absence of detainee: violation Facts : The applicant was arrested on 19 May 1997 and his detention on remand was ordered by a District Court two days later. His appeal of 27 June was dismissed on 3 July after a hearing at which he was represented but not present. On 17 July the District Court extended the detention but changed the grounds;   the applicant was again represented but did not attend in person. On 5 September he appealed but the appeal was returned to him with an explanation that the law did not provide for any appeal against a decision extending detention on remand. On 16 October the applicant was committed for trial and his detention was extended;   he was neither present nor represented at the hearing. He was convicted in February 1998. Law : Article 5 § 3 – The applicant was brought before a judge two days after his arrest and the requirement of Article 5 § 3 was therefore met. His complaint that in the following months he was not brought repeatedly before a judge falls to be examined under Article 5(4), since Article   5(3) does not include a right to be brought repeatedly before a judge. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 4 – While this provision does not guarantee a right, as such, to appeal against decisions ordering or extending detention, and the intervention of one organ is sufficient, provided the procedure followed has a judicial character and provides the guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty, where domestic law does provide for a system of appeal the appellate body must also comply with Article 5 § 4. This provision thus applied to the applicant’s appeal against the initial decision and also to the extension of his detention on 17 July 1997. However, the applicant was not present at the relevant hearings, which took place several weeks after the original detention decision. Thereafter, the applicant had no remedy and the subsequent decision to continue his detention on 16 October was taken in the absence of the parties. Given what was at stake, as well as the lapse of time between the various decisions, and the re-assessment of the basis for the detention, the applicant’s presence was required throughout the hearings of 3 and 17 July 1997 in order to be able to give satisfactory information and instructions to his counsel. Furthermore, viewed as a whole, these and the subsequent proceedings failed to afford the applicant an effective control of the lawfulness of his detention. In these circumstances, he was not given the guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court considered that there was no causal link between the violation and the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. It awarded him 5,000 litai (LTL) 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