METSAVEER proti Estonsku

FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 12454/05
by Ülari METSAVEER
against Estonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:                           

Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ülari Metsaveer, is an Estonian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Sindi.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Length of the applicant’s detention on remand

On 14 May 2003 the Saare police took the applicant into custody on suspicion of having committed several offences of fraud.

The next day the Saare County Court (maakohus) approved the applicant’s detention until 26 May 2003. It noted that the applicant had six prior criminal convictions, the last conviction for theft dating from 12 February 2003. The offences he was suspected of had been committed during the probation period related to a prior suspended sentence. The court also noted that, on 14 May 2003, at the outset of the search performed in his house, he had tried to hide from the police officers. The court found that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was warranted first and foremost in order to prevent him from committing a new offence. It also took into account the well-foundedness of the suspicion and the applicant’s personality. The court was of the opinion that – as the applicant had refused to give statements when interrogated as a suspect – it could not be excluded that he might interfere with the investigation.

On 21 May 2003 the applicant was formally charged with several offences of fraud and use of counterfeit documents. According to the charges he had on several occasions and within a group of persons induced other persons to conclude loan agreements with a public limited company. Thereby, counterfeit pay certificates and letters of warranty had been used.

On 23 May 2003 the County Court granted the investigator’s request to prolong the applicant’s detention until 6 July 2003. The court found that the pre-trial detention was primarily necessary in order to prevent him from committing a new offence. It also took into consideration the well-foundedness of the charges and the applicant’s personality.

On an unspecified date the applicant’s detention was further extended.

Also on an unspecified date the applicant was additionally charged with further offences of fraud, counterfeiting of documents and theft.

On 4 September 2003 the County Court prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention at the investigator’s request until 6 November 2003. The court noted that the applicant had been charged with twelve offences. He had six prior criminal convictions. The latest offences he was charged with had been committed while he was on probation and less than one month after his last conviction. The court considered the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s personality and found that, if at liberty, he could commit further offences or evade the investigation. The court noted that the criminal case was voluminous.

On 3 November 2003 the applicant was committed for trial together with ten other accused. The County Court ordered that the preventive custody measure not be changed.

On 7 April 2004 the County Court refused a request made by the applicant to apply a more lenient preventive measure instead of custody. The court was of the opinion that the grounds which had warranted his detention during the pre-trial investigation – the risk that he might evade the investigation or interfere with it or that he could commit further offences – still existed.

On 20 May 2004 the County Court refused the applicant’s request to apply personal surety (isiklik käendus) as a preventive measure instead of custody. The court noted that the grounds which had warranted his detention and its prolongation during the pre-trial investigation and the decision not to change the preventive custody measure when the applicant had been committed for trial still existed.

On 13 August 2004 the County Court refused a renewed request made by the applicant to apply a more lenient preventive measure – personal surety – instead of custody. The court again noted that the grounds which had previously warranted his detention still existed. It further noted that he was charged with offences for which he could be sentenced to a minimum of one year’s and maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, as he had not pleaded guilty, the court had a ground to suspect that if at liberty he could interfere with the establishment of the truth. The court observed that the applicant had six prior convictions and that he had committed the offences he was charged with while on probation.

On 29 October 2004 the County Court refused the applicant’s request to apply a more lenient preventive measure – prohibition to leave one’s place of residence or personal surety – instead of custody. The court repeated the reasons given in its previous decision. It noted, in addition, that if the charges against the applicant were proven in any part, he would actually have to serve his suspended imprisonment. The court concluded that the applicant, if at liberty, could commit further offences or abscond.

On 12 January 2005 the County Court again refused a request made by the applicant to apply a prohibition to leave one’s place of residence as a more lenient preventive measure instead of custody. The court repeated its earlier reasoning. It conceded that prior convictions in themselves could not serve as grounds for the applicant’s detention; however, these facts, taken together with the information in the case file concerning the personality of the applicant gave the court sufficient reasons to suspect that the applicant could commit further offences or abscond.

On 17 March 2005 the County Court again refused to release the applicant and to apply a prohibition to leave his place of residence instead. The court repeated the reasoning of its previous decisions and found that he could commit new offences or abscond, if released. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Tallinn Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus), which replied by a letter of 15 April 2005 that there was no appeal against the County Court’s decision concerned.

On 20 May 2005 the County Court granted the applicant’s request to release him and replaced the preventive custody measure with a prohibition to leave his place of residence.

2. Conditions of detention

The applicant’s detention lasted for two years and six days. He was mainly kept in detention in the Pärnu Prison. However, he spent several short periods, lasting from 2 to 21 days, in the Kuressaare Police Department Arrest House (politseijaoskonna arestimaja), where he was escorted from the Pärnu Prison in connection with his trial in the Saare County Court in Kuressaare. In total he spent 111 days in the arrest house.

The applicant’s cell in the arrest house had no windows, water supply or sink. The ventilation was inadequate. There was no lavatory in the cell; the inmates had to use a bucket, which stood in a corner of the cell, instead. It was not partitioned, with the result that the detainees had to relieve themselves in each other’s presence. The smell was intolerable. The inmates were not provided with hygiene articles or toilet paper. There was no table, chairs or benches or nightstand in the cell. The detainees had no possibility to be in the fresh air. There was no quiet sleeping time of eight hours due to noise. The detainees could not meet without disturbance with their lawyers. They could not read national newspapers or borrow books or journals from a library.

The applicant made several complaints to various institutions in respect of the conditions of his detention.

He made a petition to the Chancellor of Justice (õiguskantsler) who replied by letter of 22 July 2004 that he had established that the detention conditions in the Kuressaare arrest house did not meet the requirements. The Chancellor of Justice had requested the prefect of the Lääne Police Prefecture to take measures to ensure that the cells in the arrest house conform to the applicable requirements and that the inmates be given a possibility to be in the fresh air for at least one hour each day.

On 26 July 2004 the Saare County Court replied to the applicant’s complaints that the court was not competent to deal with the matters of escorting the detainees or the conditions under which the detainees were kept in detention.

By letters of 2 August and 9 August 2004, public prosecutors of the Lääne Circuit Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s complaints that the prosecutor’s office was not authorised to deal with the conditions of detention. He was advised to address his complaints to the police.

By a letter of 6 August 2004 the Lääne Police Prefecture admitted that the Kuressaare arrest house did not meet the requirements established by the Imprisonment Act (Vangistusseadus) and other legislation. However, the applicant was informed that the construction of a new building for the Kuressaare Police Department was planned and that there were no means to renovate additionally the existing arrest house.

The applicant also lodged a complaint with the Pärnu Administrative Court (halduskohus), which proceeded with the complaint concerning the claim for damages for the detention in unlawful conditions. However, referring to the lack of jurisdiction, the court refused the applicant’s request that his right not to be kept in detention in unlawful conditions be recognised.

On 18 February 2005 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) replied to the applicant that it was for the Ministry of Justice to exercise supervisory control over prisons.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention.

2. He further complained that the conditions of his detention amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

3. (a) He also complained that his detention had been in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that his presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2, had been violated.

(b) He argued that Article 5 § 4 had been violated in that the County Court’s refusal to release him could not be appealed against.

(c) Finally, he complained that he, as a person charged with a criminal offence, had been subject to more extensive restrictions than the convicted offenders. He relied on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand, relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides in the relevant part:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant further complained that the conditions of his detention in the Kuressaare Arrest House amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the invoked Articles of the Convention or its Protocol. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of his pre-trial detention and detention conditions;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President