CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 février 2001

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s78547E0E { width:22.49pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7B336495 { width:33.24pt; display:inline-block } .s62F37AE4 { width:30.56pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     91   13.2.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING GERMANY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments:   SECTION 1   (1)     Garcia Alva v. Germany (application no. 23541/94)           Violation Article 5 § 4 (2)     Lietzow v. Germany (no. 24479/94)               Violation Article 5 § 4 (3)     Schöps v. Germany (no. 25116/94)                 Violation Article 5 § 4     The applicants, are: Luis Garcia Alva, a Peruvian national born in 1964; Hugo Lietzow, a German national born in 1925 and living in Schwalbach; and, Jörg Schöps, a German national born in 1953 and living in Essen.   All three were detained on remand prior to their criminal convictions [1] . They complained that, in the proceedings to review their detention on remand, their defence counsel was denied access to their criminal files.   In Garcia Alva v. Germany and     Lietzow v. Germany the Court found that the contents of the investigation files, and in particular the statements of certain witnesses, appeared to have played a key role in the decision to prolong the applicants’ detention on remand. However, during the review proceedings, the statements’ precise contents were known only to the Public Prosecutor and the District Court and not to the applicants or their counsel. They were therefore denied an opportunity to adequately challenge the findings referred to by the Public Prosecutor and the District Court, notably by questioning the reliability or conclusiveness of witness statements relied on by the detention judge.   Noting that, in both cases, information was withheld in order not to jeopardise on-going and complex criminal investigations, the Court acknowledged the need for such investigations to be conducted efficiently and that keeping secret part of the information collected might be necessary to prevent suspects tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice. However, the Court found that this legitimate goal could not be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions on the rights of the defence. It therefore concluded that information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect’s lawyer.   In   Schöps v. Germany , the Court found that, before the proceedings of 3 November   1993 to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, the applicant’s defence counsel had not been able to inspect the 24-volume investigation files, on which the applicant’s continued detention appeared to have been based, although he had asked for access to them not later than 14 September 1993. The Court further noted that, at the review hearing of 1 March 1994, counsel had not been given access to another 45 volumes and three subsidiary files, which, by that time, had been added to the investigation file. In this respect, the Court found that an effective opportunity to inspect the additional files should have been offered to the defence.   In each case, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court further held, unanimously, that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr Garcia Alva and Mr Lietzow and awarded them each 2,000 Deutschmarks (DEM) for costs and expenses. (All three judgments are available only in English.)   ***   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:   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] Mr Garcia Alva was convicted of aiding and abetting drug trafficking on 12 July 1994, Mr Lietzow, of corruption on two counts on 8 July 1996, and Mr Schöps, of fraud, bribery and swearing a false affidavit on 15 December 1998.