(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been detained for long periods after coming under suspicion of theft of large sums. Her detention had initially been ordered by prosecutors. Her initial appeals against her detention were also decided by prosecutors. After three weeks she appealed to a court, which refused her appeal about four weeks later. It confined its consideration to the question whether she had been charged with a serious crime and whether her medical condition required that she be released. It did not consider the applicant’s arguments that she was unlikely to abscond or to interfere with the investigation. The case was examined in camera and without the participation of the parties, and the court considered written comments from the prosecutor to which the applicant had no opportunity to respond.
Held: The claimant’s human rights had been violated. The bail hearings, having been held in a closed court did not satisfy the claimant’s article 5(4) rights, and furthermore, the onus was on the claimant to establish that she was to be given bail: ‘Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.’ The proceedings before the domestic court were not truly adversarial and did not ensure equality of arms, and the court had failed to consider the applicant’s contentions.
Nevertheless in the particular circumstances, a declaration was sufficient satisfaction.
Dissenting as to the assessment of damages, Judge Bonello said: I do not share the Court’s view. I consider it wholly inadequate and unacceptable that a Court of Justice should ‘satisfy’ the victim of a breach of fundamental rights with a mere handout of legal idiom. The first time the Court appears to have resorted to this hapless formula was in the Golder case of 1975 . . Disregarding its own practice that full reasoning should be given for all decisions, the Court failed to suggest one single reason why the findings should also double up as the remedy. Since then, propelled by the irresistible force of inertia, that formula has resurfaced regularly. In view of the many judgments which relied on it did the Court seem eager to upset the rule that it has to give neither reasons nor explanations’.
Judges:
L Wildhaber P
Citations:
[1999] ECHR 16, 31195/96, (2001) 31 EHRR 64
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
Cited by:
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Degainis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages. He had been released from prison and recalled, but the review of his continued detention was not undertaken as it should have been. The defendant said that the acknowledgement and apology were sufficient just . .
Cited – Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice CA 23-Feb-2012
The claimant life sentence prisoner had inter alia been detained after the expiry of his tarriff pending a review of whether his continued detention was required for public protection. That review had been delayed, and the claimant was awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Damages
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165709
