23 Oct Judgment against Serbia on unjustified length of detention

In the case of Purić and R.B. v. Serbia the European Court of Human Rights (Applications nos. 27929/10 and 52120/13) that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants are Serbian nationals, Mr Sveto Purić (“the first applicant”) and R.B. (“the second applicant”).

On 22 February 2007 the Smederevo District Court (Okružni sud u Smederevu) ordered the first applicant’s detention on suspicion of bribery and the illegal possession of weapons and explosive materials. As from 11 September 2007 the first applicant was detained on the sole grounds of the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime. In its reasoning the court relied on, inter alia, the fact that the criminal conduct had allegedly taken place over a prolonged period of time and that the first applicant had been the dean of the Kragujevac Faculty of Law at the relevant time. Criminal proceedings are still ongoing.

On 3 November 2011 the court ordered the second applicant’s detention on suspicion of sexually abusing a child. The competent court extended the second applicant’s detention on several occasions. Notably, in the period from 18 June to 17 August 2012 the second applicant was detained, in accordance with a decision of 15 June 2012, on the sole grounds of the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime. On 17 August 2012 the second applicant was found guilty of sexually abusing a child and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.

The Court referred to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial. In particular, a justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. Furthermore, while it is true that by reason of their particular gravity and public reaction, certain offences may give rise to a social disturbance capable of justifying pre-trial detention, this ground can be regarded as relevant and sufficient only provided that it is based on facts capable of showing that the release of the accused would actually disturb public order.

The Court noted that it has already found a violation of this provision in respect of Serbia in a similar situation (case Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia, no. 3363/08, 7 January 2014). It considered that the Government did not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The national courts assessed the need to continue the applicants’ pre-trial detention from a rather abstract and formalistic perspective, relying solely on the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime. The authorities thus extended the applicants’ detention pending trial on grounds which cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify their duration. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights