PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BIANKU

Like Judge Bonello, I too have voted for a finding of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. I consider that my concerns on the Article 5 § 3 issue have been fully covered in Judge Bonello ’ s dissenting opinion in so far as it addresses that particular complaint.

[1] GC judgments of 29 April 1999, Reports 1999-III

[2] At § 56 of the judg ment.

[3] See, for example: Quinn v. France , 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311; Mazzoni v. Italy , 1 July 1997, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV.

[4] At § 59 of the judg ment.

[5] When the applicant raised the plea of jurisdiction, that very recent case-law may have been subject to appeal.

[6] According to Aquilina v. Malta , the obligation of ‘promptness’ requires  not only the prosecution to bring a detained person before a judicial authority ‘promptly’ but also that the control of the lawfulness of the detention should equally be ‘prompt’ ( vide §§ 48, 49).

[7] Musial v. Poland , (no. 24557/94) , 25 March 1999.

[8] See § 86 of the judg ment.

[9] Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta (no. 35892/97), 29 June 2000) and Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00 ) , 9 January 2003).

[10] At § 72 of the judg ment.