CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juin 2010

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 135 November 2010 Creangă v. Romania (referral) - 29226/03 Judgment 15.6.2010 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-1 Procedure prescribed by law Deprivation of liberty following extraordinary appeal by Procurator-General: case referred to the Grand Chamber At 9 a.m. on 16 July 2003 the applicant reported to the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service. At 10   a.m. he was questioned by a prosecutor. He was held until 8   p.m., when he was informed of the offences of which he was suspected. The National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service then ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention for three days, from 10   p.m. on 16   July to 10   p.m. on 18   July. On 18   July 2003 the military court of appeal, sitting as a single judge, extended his pre-trial detention for twenty-seven days. On the same day an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant. On 21   July 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld an appeal against the lawfulness of the bench that had issued that decision, quashed the first-instance decision and ordered that the applicant be released; that order was complied with on the same day. The General Prosecutor then applied to the Supreme Court of Justice for judicial review of that judgment. By a final judgment of 25   July 2003, delivered by a bench of nine judges, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the application and quashed the judgment of 21   July. On 25   July 2003 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. In July 2004 the military court of appeal ordered that the applicant be released, and replaced the measure of pre-trial detention with a ban on leaving the country. By a judgment of 15 June 2010 a Chamber of the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   1 on account of the absence of a legal basis for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty from 10   a.m. to 10   p.m. on 16   July 2003 and his placement in detention on 25   July 2003 following the application for judicial review, and that there had been no violation of Article 5 §   1 with regard to the alleged lack of reasoning for his placement in pre-trial detention from 16 to 18   July 2003. On 22 November 2010 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © 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