PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr H. DANELIUS

JOINED BY MM J.-C. GEUS, G. JÖRUNDSSON, A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK,

A. WEITZEL, J.-C. SOYER, L. LOUCAIDES, M.A. NOWICKI,

D. ŠVÁBY, E. BIELIŪNAS, M. VILA AMIGÓ

Unlike the majority of the Commission, I consider that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention has also been violated in the present case.

In para. 56 of the Report, the Commission points out, in connection with Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention, that eleven months had elapsed between the date on which the indictment was lodged with the Kraków Regional Court and the date of the first hearing and that the heavy case-load, on which the Government primarily relied as an explanation, was not a sufficient argument to justify eleven months of inactivity in a case where the applicant had remained in detention. I consider that the same delay is also relevant for the consideration of whether the requirement as to "reasonable time" in Article 6 para. 1 has been observed. 

I further note that the Kraków Court of Appeal, in its decision of 20 December 1994, admitted that the length of the proceedings was considerable but stated that it could not be attributed to the Regional Court.  Moreover, the President of the Court of Appeal, in his letter of 25 January 1995, referred to the regrettable length of the proceedings which, in his view, was due to the difficulties experienced by the Regional Court on account of staff shortages and a heavy case-load.

Having regard to these various elements, I find that the applicant's case was not heard within a reasonable time.