CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   728 06.10.2009 Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Stoican v. Romania (application no. 3097/02 )   FORMER JUDGE DETAINED FOR TOO LONG PENDING HER TRIAL   Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Ms Georgeta Stoican, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. At the relevant time she was a judge in a first-instance court in Bucharest.   Suspected of being part of an organised group and having repeatedly falsified official documents in the exercise of her duties to obtain various properties in the centre of Bucharest., two sets of criminal investigations were brought against her.   The first set of proceedings against Ms Stoican was started in October 2001. She was arrested for 30 days on the order of a prosecutor in connection with the criminal investigations against her. After that, between December 2001 and April 2002, her detention was extended several times to finalise the investigation and on the ground that her release would be contrary to public policy, given the seriousness of the offences she was accused of and the risk of generating mistrust in the judicial system. The applicant was convicted of abuse of power and forgery and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. She was released from prison on 13 November 2007.   The second set of proceedings against Ms Stoican was started in April 2002 when she was arrested. Her detention was repeatedly extended until November 2002 on the same grounds as in the first set of proceedings. She was ultimately convicted of abuse of power and forgery and sentenced to one year and four months’ imprisonment in June 2003.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Ms Stoican complained that she had not been brought promptly before a judge and had been kept too long in detention without concrete grounds.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 December 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Eight and 12 days respectively had passed in each set of proceedings before the order to arrest Ms   Stoican had been examined by a judge. In the light of its earlier case law concerning length of pre-trial detention in particularly serious cases, the Court found that Ms   Stoican should not have been detained for so many days before bringing her to a judge.   In the two sets of proceedings, the courts had extended Ms Stoican’s pre-trial detention six and nine times respectively, in order for the prosecutor to gather more evidence and because of the seriousness of the public ‑ policy issue at stake. However, no concrete reasons to corroborate these grounds had been given by the domestic courts whose reasoning had become more elliptic over time. The Court reiterated that public scrutiny of the administration of justice was possible only by giving reasoned decisions.   The Court therefore held unanimously that the lack of concrete reasons in the domestic courts’ decisions and the repeated extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial had infringed Article 5 § 3.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.