CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   558   31.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JĖČIUS v. LITHUANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Jėčius v. Lithuania. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 60,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) for non-pecuniary damage and LTL 40,000 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   Juozas Jėčius, a hotel director, was suspected of murder. From 8 February to 14 March 1996 he was detained under former Article 50-1 of the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedure which permitted detention with a view to preventing three specific offences (“preventive detention”). The applicant was detained on remand from 14 March 1996 until his acquittal on 9 June 1997. He died on 9 April 1999.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 December 1996. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 11 September 1999 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the applicant’s preventive detention (by 27 votes to 2), that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the applicant’s detention on remand from 4 June to 31 July 1996 (unanimously), that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the applicant’s detention on remand from 31 July to 16 October 1996 (unanimously), that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the alleged failure to bring the applicant promptly before a judge or other officer (by 27 votes to 2), that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the length of the applicant’s detention on remand (unanimously), that   there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (unanimously). The Commission referred the case to the Court on 25 October 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar . 3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his preventive detention and detention on remand, the authorities’ failure to bring him promptly before a judge or other officer, the length of his detention, and the inability to take proceedings to contest the lawfulness of his detention.   Decision of the Court   Death of the applicant   The Court held that the applicant’s widow had standing to continue the proceedings in his stead.   Government’s preliminary objection   The Court rejected the respondent Government’s preliminary objection that the period of the applicant’s preventive detention could not be examined because of the applicant’s failure to comply with the six months’ time-limit under Article 35 § 1. The Court held that, while on 14 March 1996 the applicant’s preventive detention was replaced with remand in custody, the change in the domestic statutory basis for his deprivation of liberty involved no visible change for the applicant. The Court ruled that the entire period of the applicant’s detention had to be viewed as a whole for the purpose of applying Article 35 § 1. As the applicant was still in detention when he lodged his application to the Convention organs, the case could not be rejected by reference to Article 35   § 1.      Article 5 § 1   1. Preventive detention   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1 in connection with the applicant’s preventive detention. The Court stressed that Article 5 § 1 (c) permitted arrest and detention on remand only in the context of criminal proceedings for alleged past offences. It further ruled that no provision of Article 5 § 1 permitted deprivation of liberty for the purposes envisaged by former Article 50-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court thus concluded that the applicant’s preventive detention was incompatible with Article 5 § 1.   2. Detention on remand from 4 June to 31 July 1996   The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1 as regards the applicant’s detention on remand from 4 June to 31 July 1996 in that there had been no valid domestic detention order or any other “lawful” basis for his remand in custody. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that part of the above period was justified by former Article 226 § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which permitted detention by reference to the detainee’s and other accuseds’ access to the case-file. The Court found that this domestic provision was unclear and incompatible with the requirements of a “law” within the meaning of Article   5   §   1. The Court further rejected the Government’s argument that part of the above period was justified by the fact that the case had been transmitted to the trial court. The Court found that a change in the stage of the domestic proceedings had not clarified the situation surrounding the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, and that it could not replace a valid detention order satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 1.   3. Detention on remand from 31 July to 16 October 1996   The   Court further held that there had been no breach of Article   5 § 1 regarding the applicant’s detention on remand from 31 July to 16 October 1996 because that period was covered by a valid detention order. The Court ruled that, regardless of the possible flaws in the wording of the order, its meaning must have been clear to the applicant.   Article 5 § 3   1. Alleged failure to bring the applicant promptly before a judge or other officer   The Court next held that there had been no violation of Article   5 § 3 in connection with the alleged failure to bring the applicant promptly before a judge or other officer. The Court found that this provision did not apply to the applicant’s preventive detention. It also ruled that his subsequent detention on remand from 14 March to 21 June 1996 was covered by the Lithuanian reservation to Article 5 § 3. The reservation, albeit not phrased in very precise terms, was sufficiently clear to relieve the State of the obligation to bring the applicant promptly before an appropriate officer during the period while it was effective until 21 June 1996. The Court further found that the obligation on a State to bring a person before an appropriate officer under Article 5 § 3 applied only to the initial period of arrest or detention, while the period of “promptness” was not exceeded. As the reservation in question had ceased to apply more than three months after the applicant’s detention on remand had been ordered, on 21 June 1996 any notion of “promptness” had already been exceeded. The Court thus found that Lithuania was no longer under an obligation to bring the applicant promptly before an appropriate officer when the reservation expired, and that there was no scope under Article 5 § 3 for a renewed obligation after the expiry of the reservation.   2. Length of detention   The Court then held that there had been a breach of Article   5 § 3 as regards the length of the applicant’s detention on remand in that the authorities had not adduced “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant’s continued detention on remand for almost fifteen months.   Article 5 § 4   The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 4 because the domestic courts had refused to examine the applicant’s challenges to the lawfulness of his detention on remand, by reference to a statutory bar then in force.           Article 41   The Court rejected the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage. It nonetheless found that the applicant had suffered non-pecuniary damage and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 60,000 LTL for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded him LTL 40,000 for legal costs and expenses.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.