CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     519   11.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TRZASKA v. POLAND     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Trzaska v. Poland. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted a sufficient just satisfaction for any damage sustained by the applicant. The Court also awarded the applicant 6,000 Polish zlotys for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Andrzej Trzaska, a Polish national, was born in 1970. He currently serves a prison sentence in Wołów prison.   On 27 June 1991 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of attempted manslaughter, robbery and rape. On 29   November   1991 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor transmitted the bill of indictment to the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with attempted manslaughter, assault, causing severe bodily harm, use of a dangerous weapon, aggravated theft, rape and theft. On 4 March 1992 the first hearing was held before the Katowice Regional Court. Subsequently, as the judge rapporteur fell ill, the case was assigned to a new panel of judges. In view of the change in the composition of the court the hearing was recommenced on 2 August 1993.   Subsequently, hearings in the case were held on 19 and 22 November 1993, 7 January 1994, 23 February 1994, 23 May 1994, 11 October 1994, 10 and 31 January 1995, 7 and 22 March 1995.   On   22   March   1995 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted manslaughter, rape and aggravated theft and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. On 19 October 1995, following the applicant’s appeal, the Katowice Court of Appeal in part quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered that the case be reconsidered. On 27 May 1997 the Katowice Regional Court again convicted the applicant and imposed a sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 April 1994. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 19 May 1998 in which it expressed, by thirty votes to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and, by twenty-six votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It referred the case to the Court on 24 November 1998. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle, Section Registrar.   3.   Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicant complained that the unreasonable length of his detention on remand had been in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. He also complained that the proceedings concerning the review of the lawfulness of his detention on remand had not been truly adversarial, as required by Article 5 § 4. He finally complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 3   The Court recalled that it falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release.   The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence – a point which was not contested in the present case – is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds are “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the applicant’s pre-trial detention, which had lasted three years and six months, was in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3.   Article 5 § 4   The Court recalled that, by virtue of Article 5 § 4, an arrested or detained person was entitled to bring proceedings for the review by a court of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of Article 5 § 1, of his or her deprivation of liberty. Although it was not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 for criminal or civil litigation, it had to have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question. In the case of a person whose detention fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing was required.   In particular, in the proceedings in which an appeal against detention order was being examined, “equality of arms” between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained person had to be ensured.   In the case under consideration it was not contested that the law, as it stood at the relevant time, did not entitle either the applicant himself or his lawyer to attend the court session at which the lawfulness of the detention order was examined. Moreover, the applicable provisions did not require that the prosecutor’s submissions in support of the applicant’s detention be communicated either to the applicant or to his lawyer. Consequently, the applicant did not have any opportunity to comment on those arguments in order to contest the reasons invoked by the prosecuting authorities to justify his detention. Furthermore, under applicable laws it was open for the prosecutor to be present at court sessions in which the court examined the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and that on one occasion the prosecutor was present.   In conclusion, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 6 § 1   The Court recalled that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings was to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities, which in this instance called for an overall assessment.   The Court found that the criminal proceedings against the applicant, considering that the Court had become competent to examine individual petitions against Poland on 1 May 1993, had lasted four years, one months and eighteen days. The Court held, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, that the length of the criminal proceedings contravened Article 6 § 1.   Article 41   The Court considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any damage sustained by the applicant.   It awarded the applicant a sum of PLN 6,000 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] Judge elected in respect of San Marino.