The Maltese government has been ordered to pay British national Jovica Kolakovic €8,200 by the European Court of Human Rights which found that Mr Kolakovic’s right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial was breached.

Mr Kolakovic was arrested and charged with drug possession and intent to traffic in September, 2009.

Following multiple bail requests which were rejected by the relevant courts, he lodged constitutional redress proceedings in March 2010.

In a judgement given in August, 2010, the court dismissed the applicant’s claims, pointing out, however, that the decision was without prejudice to any remedies he would be entitled to request at the proper time and if the need arose.

The applicant appealed.

In January, 2011, pending the constitutional appeal proceedings, the applicant was granted bail subject to a number of conditions including a bail bond. Since the specified amount was not paid, he remained in custody.

In a judgement given in February, 2011 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s rights in view of the ongoing passage of time since the first-instance judgment, during which period the applicant’s requests had continued to be repeatedly rejected.

However, it did not order his release but awarded the applicant €1,000.

In another judgement in January, 2012, the court held that the applicant’s claim was not justified. However, it invited the Court of Magistrates to re-evaluate the conditions imposed following the application filed by the applicant.

The applicant appealed, arguing that various items of documentation including bank statements had been presented to the court; moreover, factual mistakes had been made, such as the misconception that his business had been sold and not closed down.

In another judgement given in November, 2012 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal.

The applicant lodged a request for a retrial, which was rejected by a judgment given in April, 2014.

In its judgement, the ECHR  considered that the fact that the applicant remained in custody for another 15 months after being granted bail suggested that the domestic courts had not taken the necessary care in fixing appropriate bail.

The government argued that the applicant had failed to substantiate his financial position, at least until the time of the second set of constitutional proceedings, and it was not for the Court of Magistrates to launch a fact-finding mission.

But in its decision, the Court observed that by September 21, 2011 the applicant’s real financial position had become sufficiently clear.

However, he spent at least seven months more in detention.