CASE OF MUSIAL v. POLANDDISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PASTOR RIDRUEJO
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: March 25, 1999
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PASTOR RIDRUEJO
( Translation )
To my great regret, I cannot share the opinion of the majority of the Court. Admittedly, the length of the proceedings brought by the applicant to secure his release was excessive. In the opinion of the majority of the Court, the Katowice Regional Court was responsible for that excessive length since it was under a duty to ensure that expert medical reports were submitted within a reasonable time.
In the instant case, however, I consider that the court’s control over the progress of the case was only limited and indirect. Regard must also be had to the fact that it was the applicant himself who requested an expert opinion from Cracow University. It is accordingly understandable that the Regional Court should have waited for that opinion to be filed. In my view, it was primarily the University which did not see to it that the opinion was submitted within a reasonable time.
For these reasons, I think that there has not been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention by Poland.
[1] Notes by the Registry
1-2. Protocol No. 11 and the Rules of Court came into force on 1 November 1998.
[3] 3. Since the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, which amended Article 19, the Court has functioned on a permanent basis.
[1] Notes by the Registry
1. Protocol No. 9 came into force on 1 October 1994 and was repealed by Protocol No. 11.
2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, applied until 31 October 1998 to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9.
[2] 1. Note by the Registry . For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the final printed version of the judgment (in the official reports of selected judgments and decisions of the Court), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the Registry.