Requests of detainees to be released should be dealt with in a short time. Examination of a two-month request violates the requirement for a quick hearing.
JUDGMENT
Stergiopoulos v. Greece 7.11.2017 (no. 29049/12)
SUMMARY
Temporary detention order and excessive length of time to examine its legality. Infringement of the right to personal liberty and security in relation to the failure to examine the appeal for the lifting of the provisional detention in a ‘short term’ period.
PROVISION
Artcile 5 § 4
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Panagiotis Stergiopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1969 and lives in Piraeus (Greece). The case concerned the examination of his appeal against the order made for his detention.
On 23 November 2011 Mr Stergiopoulos was arrested and held in Korydallos Prison. On 28 November 2011 the investigating judge ordered his detention after questioning him. On 2 December 2011 Mr Stergiopoulos appealed against the order for his pre-trial detention before the Indictment Division of the Athens Criminal Court. He requested that his appeal be examined “speedily”.
On 19 December 2011 the public prosecutor at the Athens Criminal Court proposed that the applicant’s request be rejected. On 5 January 2012 the Indictment Division rejected the request and ruled that the applicant should continue to be held in pre-trial detention. It observed in particular that there was strong evidence that the applicant was guilty, that he had previously been convicted of fraud and theft and that the health problems he referred to could be treated in detention. On 3 February 2012 Mr Stergiopoulos lodged an application for the detention order to be lifted subject to certain conditions. On 3 April 2012 the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal allowed the application and the applicant was subsequently released.
Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), Mr Stergiopoulos alleged in particular that the Indictment Division had not examined his appeal against the detention order “speedily” and that had been unable to appear before the Indictment Division.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 5 § 4 – concerning the obligation to rule “speedily”
Violation of Article 5 § 4 – concerning the obligation to have Mr Stergiopoulos appear before the Indictment Division
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)(echrcaselaw.com editing).
