1. Context of the Case
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the case within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), focusing on the complaints raised under Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention, concerning the lawfulness and proportionality of the personal security measure of “detention on remand” imposed on the applicant. The security measure was ordered as part of criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was accused of abuse of office. The First Instance Court reasoned that the prosecution had not yet gathered all the evidence and that there was a risk that the applicant, if investigated while at liberty, would tamper with the evidence and exert influence over the witnesses.
2. Parties’ Claims
The applicant argued that at the time of his arrest, he had been dismissed from his position several months earlier and, consequently, had no possibility to manipulate the data of the tender file. He added that the suspicions against him were based exclusively on documents previously seized by the prosecution, thereby excluding any risk of interference with evidence or witnesses.
Regarding the risk of absconding, he stated that he had voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and that the confiscation of his passport or the application of less restrictive measures would have been sufficient to ensure his presence during the proceedings.
– The Court of Appeal dismissed these claims, assessing that the applicant had direct connections with the victims of the alleged criminal offence, with the favored party in the tender, and with other suspects, which could result in their coordination for the manipulation of evidence.
The Court concluded that alternative measures, such as the prohibition on leaving the country, would not have been sufficient to neutralize these risks. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal characterized the applicant’s personality as “particularly dangerous,” taking into account the nature of the alleged criminal offences – abuse of office and misappropriation of public funds – which carried a sentence of up to 7 years of imprisonment.
– Subsequent appeals by the applicant were rejected by the national courts, which argued that there had been no change in the conditions that had led to the imposition of the measure of “detention on remand.”
3. Analysis and Reasoning of the Court
The applicant complained under Article 5, paragraphs 1(c) and 3 of the ECHR, claiming that there was no valid legal basis for his placement in detention on remand and that the duration of the measure had been disproportionate.
The ECtHR emphasized that the continuation of a “reasonable suspicion” is a sine qua non condition for the validity of the measure of “detention on remand,” but with the passage of time, this basis alone is no longer sufficient. In this context, the Court examined whether the other reasons given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty.
By analyzing its previous case-law and the facts of the case, the ECtHR concluded that the reasons given by the national authorities were not sufficient to justify the applicant’s continued detention for the relevant period. The Court also found that the national authorities had not demonstrated “special diligence” in the conduct of the judicial proceedings, which constituted a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention.
