The case involved a defendant accused of fraud who repeatedly excused himself from the main trial citing health problems. The Regional Court assessed his behaviour as obstruction and ordered his remand in custody, which was then extended several times. However, the Constitutional Court found that such a procedure violated the rights of the accused – delays in proceedings do not in themselves constitute grounds for detention unless there is, for example, a concrete fear of flight or continuation of criminal activity.
According to the ruling, courts must first resort to more lenient measures, such as ordering the accused to be brought before the police. Only if such measures fail can they consider restricting personal liberty through detention. The ruling underlines the principle that detention should always be a measure of last resort and must be duly justified.