Source: http://eujusticia.net/index.php/case-law/category/pre-trial-detention-measure-f/P10
Timestamp: 2018-09-19 03:58:28
Document Index: 368046383

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 1', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 3', '§ 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 1', '§ 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 3']

ILKIN v RUSSIA
Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015 STATE:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment, Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention, Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)
(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Degrading treatment (Art. 3) Inhuman treatment (Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-3) Reasonableness of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-4) Speediness of review
53. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 54. The Government considered that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been compatible with the requirements set forth in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The applicant had been charged with a serious offence which entailed a custodial sentence in excess of two years; he had previously absconded from the investigating authorities; he had been unemployed and had no stable source of income; he had the necessary knowledge and experience to interfere with the administration of justice and he had been privy to the personal data of the victim of the crime and some of the witnesses. 55. The applicant maintained his complaint. In his view, his detention pending trial had not been necessary. His appearance before the trial court could have been secured through bail. He further considered that the reasons advanced by the authorities when extending his pre-trial detention had not been sufficient to justify this. In particular, the argument that he might abscond or threaten the victim or the witnesses had not been based on any factual information. Lastly, he argued that the investigating authorities had not dealt with the case with sufficient diligence. On numerous occasions the investigator had asked the court to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention despite the fact that no investigations had been taking place.
3, 5, 5-3, 5-4
REFERENCE: 12436/11 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-157373
KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v RUSSIA
Thursday, 17 Sep 2015 STATE:
All applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their pre-trial detention was not based on a “reasonable suspicion” that they had committed a criminal offence. They also complained that their pre-trial detention had not been justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
REFERENCE: 13008/13 60882/12 53390/13 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-157283
YEGOROV v SLOVAKIA
Wednesday, 2 Sep 2015 STATE:
Slovakia OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention, Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Lawful arrest or detention (Art. 5-1-C) Bringing before competent legal authority (Art. 5-3) Reasonableness of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-4) Procedural guarantees of review
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 62. With reference to the remand decisions of 16 July 2010 and 29 July 2011, the applicant complained that (i) his arrest and detention pending trial on the first charge of murder and the charge of conceiving, setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group had been unlawful and arbitrary and (ii) his interlocutory appeal against the detention order of 16 July 2010 had not been properly examined, in violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant read: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and the security of the person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ... 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be made conditional upon guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to institute proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
5, 5-1, 5-1-c, 5-3, 5-4
REFERENCE: 27112/11 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155006
LOISEL v FRANCE
Thursday, 30 Jul 2015 STATE:
No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention
The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.
5, 5-3
REFERENCE: 50104/11 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156747
Tuesday, 28 Jul 2015 STATE:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-1, Reasonable time limit) Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Right to defend oneself with the assistance of a lawyer) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial, criminal procedure, Article 6-1 - Fair trial)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-1) Reasonable time (Art. 6-3-C) Defence through legal assistance
The applicant complained that the length of pre-trial detention to which he had been subjected was excessive. He also complained that he was convicted on the basis of evidence collected during detention following his initial arrest, when he was maltreated and did not have access to a lawyer.
5, 5-3, 6, 6+6-1, 6-1, 6-3-c
REFERENCE: 36001/06 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-154145
MIKHALCHUK v RUSSIA
Thursday, 23 Jul 2015 STATE:
The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 3 which reads as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
REFERENCE: 33803/04 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153904
ALEKSANDR DMITRIYEV v RUSSIA
Tuesday, 7 Jul 2015 STATE:
The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention was in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
REFERENCE: 12993/05 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-154159
ORLOVSKIY v UKRAINE
Thursday, 2 Jul 2015 STATE:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Lawful arrest or detention (Art. 5-3) Reasonableness of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-4) Review of lawfulness of detention
The applicant complained that he had been detained unlawfully between 28 July and 1 August 2006 and between 19 February and 18 March 2009, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads in so far as relevant: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...” The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
5, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4
REFERENCE: 12222/09 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153352
STETTNER v POLAND
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2015 STATE:
No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court, Speediness of review)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-4) Review by a court (Art. 5-4) Speediness of review
The applicant alleged a breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in that the authorities had not justified his detention on remand on any relevant ground. In particular, his detention on remand could not be justified by the severity of the penalty to which he was liable in the absence of any concrete circumstances warranting the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings. In this respect he submitted that he could not possibly obstruct the proceedings since the police wanted to interview 2000 of his former patients. He further submitted that the courts refused to take into account his unblemished reputation and the guarantees put forward by the Lublin Medical Chamber and the doctors from his clinic. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 about the delay in examination of his appeal against the Lublin District Court’s decision of 28 August 2006 prolonging his detention on remand.
REFERENCE: 38510/06 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153019
KOLAKOVIC v MALTA
Friday, 19 Jun 2015 STATE:
Malta OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention, Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-3) Reasonableness of pre-trial detention
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 about his sixteen-month detention ‒ as a result of the impossibility of meeting the bail guarantees imposed on him by the domestic court ‒ after bail had been granted. He stated that during the lengthy detention no measures had been undertaken by the authorities to ensure due diligence.
REFERENCE: 76392/12 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-152892