View source for Musial v Poland 24557/94 (1999) ECHR 15

''Requesting a second opinion did not amount to a waiver of the right to a speedy hearing; the court’s agreement to request a second opinion did not absolve it of the duty to ensure speediness (including using powers such as the fining of witnesses); complexity of a medical file was relevant to the issue of speediness; reliance on an out-of-date medical report could breach Art 5.'' [MHLR.]

==MHLR==
{{MHLR|1999|35}}

==Old wiki summary==
''The lawfulness of the applicant's detention had not been decided speedily (there had been a delay of 20 months between application and determination) so [[Article 5]](4) had been violated.''

==External link==
{{#bailii:[1999] ECHR 15}}


[[Category:Tribunal delay]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:1999 cases]]