003-5999206-7685211

WyrokETPCz2018-02-08

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy pre-trial detention trwająca ponad rok naruszyła prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego oraz prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie lub zwolnienia w oczekiwaniu na proces (art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji)? Czy doszło do naruszenia zasady domniemania niewinności (art. 6 ust. 2 Konwencji)?

Ratio decidendi

Informacje zawarte w komunikacie prasowym nie pozwalają na szczegółowe określenie ratio decidendi. Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 5 ust. 3, co oznacza, że uznał, iż długość aresztu tymczasowego (ponad rok) była nadmierna lub nieuzasadniona w świetle wymogów Konwencji, naruszając prawo skarżących do wolności i bezpieczeństwa. Jednocześnie Trybunał nie stwierdził naruszenia art. 6 ust. 2, co sugeruje, że działania lub oświadczenia władz krajowych nie podważyły domniemania niewinności skarżących.

Stan faktyczny

Velija Ramkovski i Emel Ramkovska, ojciec i córka, obywatele Macedonii, zostali aresztowani w grudniu 2010 roku. Było to w związku z podejrzeniem o spisek kryminalny i uchylanie się od płacenia podatków, gdzie pierwszy skarżący miał stworzyć zorganizowaną grupę przestępczą. Zostali umieszczeni w areszcie tymczasowym na 30 dni, który był wielokrotnie przedłużany, a ich odwołania oddalane. Ich areszt trwał ponad rok. Zostali skazani przez sąd pierwszej instancji w marcu 2012 roku, a wyrok został utrzymany w mocy w lutym 2013 roku.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 5 § 3 Konwencji. Trybunał stwierdził brak naruszenia art. 6 § 2 Konwencji. Trybunał zasądził 780 euro zadośćuczynienia każdemu ze skarżących za szkodę niemajątkową.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 049 (2018) 08.02.2018 Judgments and decisions of 8 February 2018 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 24 judgments1 and 57 decisions2: one Chamber judgment is summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one other Chamber judgment in the case of Ben Faiza v. France (application no. 31446/12); separate press releases have also been issued for five decisions, in the cases of Smajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 48657/16), Balta v. France (no. 19462/12), Charron and Merle-Montet v. France (no. 22612/15), Cacciato v. Italy (no. 60633/16) and Guiso and Others v. Italy (no. 50821/06); Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings, and the 52 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release. The judgment below is available only in English. Ramkovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no. 33566/11) The applicants are Velija Ramkovski, born in 1947, and Emel Ramkovska, born in 1971. They are Macedonian nationals who are respectively a father and his daughter. They live in Skopje. The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about their pre-trial detention, which had lasted over a year. The applicants were arrested in December 2010. An investigating judge subsequently opened an investigation into 20 people, including the applicants, on suspicion of criminal conspiracy and tax evasion. In particular, it was alleged that the first applicant had created an organised group for the commission of various offences through a network of companies founded and owned by the suspects. Nineteen suspects, including Mr Ramkovski and Ms Ramkovska, were placed in pre-trial detention for 30 days. The applicants’ detention order was extended several times, with their appeals being dismissed. They were convicted by the trial court in March 2012, a decision which was upheld on appeal in February 2013. The applicants relied in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 2 Just satisfaction: 780 euros (EUR) to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage) Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30) Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2