Resolution ResDH(2004)33
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 25 April 2000 (final on 25 July 2000)
in the case of Punzelt against the Czech Republic
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 June 2004
at the 885th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Punzelt case delivered on 25 April 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 31315/96) against the Czech Republic, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 March 1993 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Siegfried Punzelt, a German national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that there had been a breach of his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, and his complaint under Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him;
Whereas in its judgment of 25 April 2000 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention on account of the length of the applicant’s detention on remand;
- held that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention on account of the refusal to release the applicant on bail;
- held that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 10 000 German marks in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 10 000 German marks in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 10% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 25 April 2000, having regard to the Czech Republic’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 6 October 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 25 April 2000,
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of the Czech Republic, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)33
Information provided by the Government of the Czech Republic
during the examination of the Punzelt case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Government notes that in its judgment of 25 April 2000, the European Court found that the domestic courts invoked “sufficient” and “relevant” reasons to justify the continuing detention of the applicant pending the adjudication of the criminal case brought against him for fraud. Nevertheless, taking into account the circumstances of the case, it was found that “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings and therefore the length of the applicant’s detention on remand was excessive.
With a view to avoiding new, similar cases, the translated judgment of the European Court was published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice and in the Pravni Praxe, a journal of the Ministry of Justice widely disseminated in legal circles. The judgment was also sent to the Constitutional Court and to Regional courts. These measures aimed to allow the competent Czech authorities to give direct effect to the judgment of the European Court and thus to ensure that “special diligence” was shown when dealing with criminal cases involving persons in detention on remand.
Subsequently, as a complementary measure, on 1 January 2002 Law No. 265/2001 entered into force amending some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The new wording of Article 2 (4) of the Code stressed that criminal matters must be dealt with as fast as possible whilst protecting in full the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Declaration of Basic Rights and Liberties and by the international treaties on human rights and basic liberties by which the Czech Republic is bound.
Also, additional safeguards have been added against excessive length of detention on remand. According to the new Article 71 (8) of the Code, overall detention in criminal proceedings may not exceed four years for defendants charged with crimes which carry exceptional punishments (life imprisonment or imprisonment between 15 and 25 years); three years for defendants charged with especially grave, wilfully committed criminal offences (which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 8 years); two years for the other criminal cases tried at first instance by a bench of a district court or a regional court; one year in criminal cases tried before a single judge.
Also, according to Article 71 (9) of the Code, of the above-mentioned time-limits, one third falls upon the preparatory proceedings, while two thirds upon the court proceedings. After expiry of these time-limits, the defendant must be immediately released from custody.
Before this amendment, the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed detention on remand for especially serious offences to be prolonged for a maximum period of four years, while at present the length of the detention on remand for such crimes cannot exceed three years.
In view of the foregoing, the Czech Government considers that the competent Czech authorities will not fail to provide for the “special diligence” required by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and that there is thus no risk of future violations of the kind noted in the instant case and that the Czech Republic has consequently fulfilled its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy