CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 avril 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   350 28.04.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MILOŠEVIĆ v. SERBIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Milošević v. Serbia (application no. 31320/05).   The Court held unanimously that:   there had been a violation of Article 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because, as a result of the application of the relevant domestic legislation, the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr Milošević had not been brought promptly before a judge who had the power to order his release from detention; it had not been necessary to examine the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol 4 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Slaviša Milošević, was a national of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro when he lodged his application before the Court. He was born in 1972 and lives in Belgrade.   In December 1999, a judicial investigation was opened in respect of Mr Milošević on suspicion of him having committed numerous thefts. In January 2000 Mr Milošević’s whereabouts were unknown to the court and the judge issued a warrant ordering his detention for a period of up to one month. In April 2002, a lawyer was appointed by the court to represent Mr Milošević in the proceedings against him.   Mr Milošević was arrested on 20 January 2005, on the basis of the court’s warrant of January 2000, and was taken to the district prison in Belgrade. After having made an unsuccessful attempt to contact the applicant’s lawyer, the court appointed him a different one.   On 27 January 2005, Mr Milošević was heard by a judge in his lawyer’s presence. He denied all charges and explicitly stated he would not appeal against his detention. On 4 February 2005, his detention was extended by the court without having heard him or his lawyer in person. Mr Milošević appealed against this extension of his detention, which was rejected by the court, again in his and his lawyer’s absence.   In May 2005 Mr Milošević was found guilty, sentenced to a year and two months in prison. The court released him from detention pending his appeal.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 August 2005 and examined together for admissibility and merits on 7 April 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges , and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement), Mr Milošević complained of not having been brought promptly before a judge with the power to order his release from detention, as a result of which his freedom of movement had been unduly restricted.   Decision of the Court   Article 5   §   3   The Court noted that Mr Milošević’s complaint related to an alleged deficiency in the relevant domestic legislation, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to the manner in which it had been interpreted by the domestic courts and applied to his case. In particular, Mr   Milošević or his lawyer had not had an explicit right to be heard in person by the domestic courts or be present when the appeal against a decision on his detention had been considered by a higher domestic court. Likewise, the judge who had heard Mr Milošević on 27 January 2005 had had no obligation under domestic law to review his detention or the power to independently order his release.   The Court recalled that any individual under arrest had a right that a judicial control be carried out promptly and by a judge authorised by law to order their release pending trial. Mr   Milošević had not been brought in person before a judge who had the obligation to review and the power to order his release until, at the earliest, more than 41 days following his arrest. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 5   §   3.   Article 2 Protocol 4   The Court held that, in view of its findings in respect of Article 5   §   3, it was not necessary to examine Mr Milošević’s complaint under this Article.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.