DISSENTING OPINION OF MR M.A. NOWICKI JOINED BY

MM E. BUSUTTIL, G. JŐRUNDSSON, J.-C. GEUS AND E. BIELIŪNAS

I find myself unable to agree with the opinion of the majority of the Commission that there has been no violation of Article 6 para.1 of the Convention.

Firstly, I would like to stress that the established case - law of the Convention organs indicates clearly that in cases where the accused person is in detention on remand the competent domestic authorities must display special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings (see: the Matznetter v. Austria judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, para. 12).

It is true that the investigations in this case were conducted speedily enough.   However, after the bill of indictment had been lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court on 10 June 1994 there was a very long period of inactivity in the proceedings until 28 July 1995, the date on which the first hearing was held before that court. No explanation of this period of inactivity was submitted by the Government other than that the Warsaw Regional Court had an exceptionally heavy case-load at that time.

Secondly, the applicant did not contribute in any way to the prolongation of the proceedings.  It is true that he requested release three times but no any reproach can be leveled against him for having made full use of the remedies available under the domestic law ( see: the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, para. 82 and the Corigiliano v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 57 para. 42). Furthermore it should be emphasized that the courts  took more than four months to examine the applicant’s requests although under Polish law ( Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) every request for release should be examined within three days . 

This being so, I consider that in this case the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.