Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16

March 2000

Baranowski v. Poland - 28358/95

Judgment 28.3.2000 [Section I]

Article 5

Article 5-1

Lawful arrest or detention

Continuation of detention on remand under a practice without any legal basis: violation

Article 5-4

Speediness of review

Length of time taken to decide on requests for release from detention on remand: violation

Facts : The applicant was detained on remand in June 1993. The Regional Court prolonged the detention, initially until the end of 1993 and then until 31 January 1994. The criminal investigation was concluded and the prosecutor lodged the bill of indictment during January 1994. As a result, an appeal which the applicant had lodged on 7 January against the decision to prolong his detention was treated as a request for release, since the practice was to consider it unnecessary for any decision prolonging detention to be taken once the bill of i ndictment had been lodged. The Court of Appeal referred the matter back to the Regional Court, which did not however examine it. The applicant had notified the prosecutor on 1 February that there was no basis for his continuing detention after 31 January, but his two requests for release (of 7 February and 28 March), in which he invoked ill-health, were rejected on 24 May and this was confirmed on appeal on 5 July. In December 1994 the Regional Court found that the order for the applicant's detention until 31 January 1994 was enforceable despite his appeal against it and confirmed that the subsequent detention was based on the fact that the bill of indictment had been lodged. The detention order was eventually quashed and the applicant was released. The law has since been amended to end the practice of continuing detention on remand solely on the basis of an indictment having been lodged.

Law : Article 5 § 1 - The practice of maintaining detention on the basis of the indictment was not based on any specific le gislative provision or case-law but stemmed from the absence of clear rules. The relevant legislation consequently did not satisfy the test of foreseeability. Moreover, the practice, allowing detention for an unlimited and unpredictable time, was in itself contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Such detention, which had not been ordered by a court or judge or other officer exercising judicial power, could not be regarded as "lawful": the prolongation of detention beyond the initial period foreseen in paragraph 3 of Article 5 necessitated judicial intervention as a safeguard against arbitrariness.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 5 § 4: The proceedings relating to the first request for release (of 7 February 1994) lasted approximately 5 months (until 5 July) and those relating to the second request (of 28 March) ran concurrently and lasted just over three months. The complexity of the medical issues involved can be a factor in assessing "speediness" but even if exceptional it does not absolve the national authorities from their obligations. There were rather lengthy intervals between decisions to take evidence, which does not appear con sistent with "special diligence". The proceedings were not conducted speedily. In addition, since the applicant's appeal of 7 January was not examined, all of the issues concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention were in effect determined by th e decision of 5 July 1994, and that decision may be seen as having addressed the arguments raised by the applicant in the appeal of 7 January. The determination of the lawfulness of the prolongation of his detention therefore lasted from 7 January until 5 July, almost 6 months. Such a long delay, which resulted in the appeal being of no legal or practical effect, amounted to a denial of his rights under Article 5 § 4.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: The Court considered that there was no ca usal link between the violation and the alleged pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant 30,000 zlotys (PLN) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary b y the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes