Communicated on 1 June 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 59815/13
Dmitrijus ZDOROVCEVAS
against Malta
lodged on 10 September 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitrijus Zdorovcevas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1986 and was, at the time of the introduction of the application, detained in Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola, Malta.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 April 2011 the applicant arrived in Malta from Brussels. He was found in possession of a suspicious packet and was arrested and cautioned.
On 13 April 2011 the applicant was brought before the Court of Magistrates as a court of criminal inquiry in connection with drug related offences.
On the same day he requested the court to grant him bail. The Attorney General objected as the applicant did not have a fixed abode in Malta and was at risk of absconding. The court refused his request on the same day.
On 3 May 2011, the Court of Magistrates, sitting as a court of criminal inquiry, following committal proceedings which took place over a number of hearings, decided to commit the applicant for trial and sent the relevant file to the Attorney General. Further evidence was collected and witness testimony heard after that day. At least thirty hearings were held in all.
According to the documents submitted by the applicant (which were given to him by his legal aid lawyer), on 30 May 2012 the applicant requested bail. The Attorney General objected. By a decision of 31 May 2012 the applicant’s request was rejected as he did not have a permanent address and had no ties with Malta.
On an unspecified date the applicant made a further request for bail. By an undated decision (prior to 30 January 2014) the Court of Magistrates granted the applicant bail subject to conditions which included i) appearance at the hearings, ii) prohibition from leaving the Maltese islands or hiding, iii) prohibition from approaching witnesses, iv) prohibition from committing any other voluntary crime, v) to report daily at the police station, vi) to respect the imposed curfew, vi) to inform the police of any change of address; it further imposed financial guarantees by way of a deposit of 4,000 euros (EUR) and a personal guarantee of EUR 25,000, thus a total of EUR 29,000, which would be forfeited on breach of any of the above conditions.
On 30 January 2014 a further condition was added, namely that the applicant reside at a specific address.
On 24 March 2014 (date of the last communication with the Court) the applicant was still in detention on remand as he was unable to pay the deposit of EUR 4,000.
The Court has to date not been informed that he has been released on bail.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he spent more than two and a half years in detention on remand, and that after repeated bail refusals, he was granted bail against a deposit which he was unable to pay, and thus continued to remain in detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did the grounds given by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty?
2. Were the conditions imposed on the applicant to ensure his appearance at the trial in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the financial guarantees requested of the applicant disproportionate by reference to the detainee’s assets (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, 10 August 2006; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8; and Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, 12 October 2006)?
3. Have the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings?
4. The Government should submit details about any further bail requests lodged by the applicant and the relevant decisions (if any), as well as details about the criminal proceedings in particular highlighting the relevant time-lines, the number of hearings and what transpired at each hearing.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy