Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved
The court contrasted the stipulation in article 6(1)-the general requirement for a hearing of any proceedings, civil or criminal, ‘within a reasonable time’-with that in article 5(3)-the requirement for ‘trial within a reasonable time’ or ‘release pending trial’: ‘Article 5(3), for its part, refers only to persons charged and detained. It implies that there must be special diligence in the conduct of the prosecution of the cases concerning such persons. Already in this respect the reasonable time mentioned in this provision may be distinguished from that provided for in article 6.’
1602/62, (1969) 1 EHRR 155, [1969] ECHR 2, [1964] ECHR 10, [1969] ECHR 25
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland PC 28-Nov-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.164852
