Detention for rape and sexual abuse of a minor. No immediate examination before a judge after his arrest and failure to examine promptly the replacement of the provisional detention

JUDGMENT

Krassas v. Greece 28.6.2018 (no. 45957/11)

see here  

SUMMARY 

Arrest a father after a complaint about rape and sexual abuse of his minor daughter. The applicant complained that he had not been brought before a judge immediately and that his request for release on bail had not been dealt with ‘within a short time’. Infringement of Article 5 § 4 and Article 5 § 3 (Freedom and Security).

PROVISIONS 

Article 5 § 4

Article 5 § 3

PRINCIPAL FACTS 

The applicant, Dimitrios Krassas, is a Greek national who was born in 1965 and lives in Piraeus (Greece).

A preliminary investigation was instituted against Mr Krassas following a complaint by his wife, from whom he was separated, of rape and sexual abuse of their three-year-old daughter. In January 2010 the investigator issued a warrant for Mr Krassas’s arrest on the ground, among others, that he had not appeared before the investigator on the date stipulated in the summons for the purposes of submitting his defence.

In a decision of 18 January 2011 the President of the Court of Appeal committed Mr Krassas for trial before the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, in accordance with the direct-summons procedure, ordered an extension of the validity of the arrest warrant and, in the event of arrest, placement in detention until the final determination of the charges against him. A hearing was listed for 26 September 2011.

On 18 January 2011 Mr Krassas was arrested at his workplace. On 3 February 2011 he filed an application with the registry of the Criminal Court of Appeal for release on bail. Having been initially detained at the Egaleo police station, he was transferred to Tripoli Prison where he was detained until 9 March 2011. On that date the Indictments Division of the Athens Court of Appeal granted his request for release on bail on the grounds that he had a known place of residence, had a job, did not have a criminal record, and had not been unlawfully absent or attempted to flee.
Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that he had not been “brought promptly before a judge”, on grounds of an omission in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying also on Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention, he complained that his application for release on bail had not been examined “speedily”.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Just satisfaction: 1,700 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 861 (costs and expenses)(echrcaselaw.com editing).


ECHRCaseLaw

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Decline all Services
Accept all Services