CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 janvier 1993

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7C285904 { width:10.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1F7F12F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s589F1A46 { width:25.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s610C6448 { width:243.16pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72317955 { width:143.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5CD0B752 { width:229.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6980D65C { width:164.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8AB0B9E4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC70017F7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s76AF6B1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CB67CBD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s51F88C76 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2BFD819B { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAE2C6750 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }       COURT (CHAMBER)             CASE OF W. v. SWITZERLAND   (Application no. 14379/88)             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   26 January 1993 In the case of W. v. Switzerland [] , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") [] and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   R. Ryssdal , President ,   Mr   F. Matscher ,   Mr   L.-E. Pettiti ,   Mr   B. Walsh ,   Mr   J. De Meyer ,   Mr   S.K. Martens ,   Mr   A.N. Loizou ,   Sir   John Freeland ,   Mr   L. Wildhaber , and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen , Registrar , and Mr H. Petzold , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 29 August and 26 November 1992, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 13 December 1991 and by the Government of the Swiss Confederation ("the Government") on 10 January 1992, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 14379/88) against Switzerland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by Mr W., a Swiss national, on 20 September 1988. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Switzerland recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government’s application referred to Articles 45, 47 and 48 (art. 45, art. 47, art. 48). The object of the request and the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3). 2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant - whose identity the Court agreed not to disclose - stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30); the President gave the said lawyer leave to use the German language (Rule 27 para. 3). 3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr L. Wildhaber, the elected judge of Swiss nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 24 January 1992, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr B. Walsh, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr A.N. Loizou and Sir John Freeland (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). 4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicant on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 19 June and the applicant’s claims under Article 50 (art. 50) on 23 June. 5. On 22 April, 5 May and 23 June 1992, the Commission, the Government and the applicant produced various documents, including some requested by the Registrar on the President’s instructions. 6. In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 28 August 1992. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: - for the Government   Mr O. Jacot-Guillarmod , Under-Secretary     of the Federal Office of Justice, Head of the International Affairs     Division,   Agent ,   Mr T. Maurer , President     of the Economic Criminal Court of the Canton of Berne,   Mr B. Schnell , Cantonal Attorney     of the Canton of Berne for economic criminal cases,   Mr F. Schürmann , Deputy Head     of the Department of European Law and International Affairs,     Federal Office of Justice,   Counsel ; - for the Commission   Mrs J. Liddy ,   Delegate ; - for the applicant   Mr P. Saluz , Fürsprecher,   Counsel . The Court heard addresses by Mr Jacot-Guillarmod, Mr Maurer and Mr Schnell for the Government, Mrs Liddy for the Commission and Mr Saluz for the applicant, and also their replies to its questions. AS TO THE FACTS I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7. The applicant is a Swiss businessman who with eleven accomplices was prosecuted for a series of economic offences, including a large number of frauds in the management of some sixty companies. He was arrested on 27 March 1985 and placed in pre-trial detention with six of his co-accused, on the grounds that there was a risk of absconding, collusion and repetition of offences. A. The investigation 8. The first complaints relating to him had reached the criminal police of the Canton of Berne in October 1982, inter alia following a number of fraudulent bankruptcies. In October 1984 the cantonal authorities asked the Interpol agencies in Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Monaco and several Caribbean countries to make inquiries about the applicant, and opened a preliminary investigation against him on 8 February 1985. In view of the complexity of the case they set up in mid-1985 a subsection of the office of the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichteramt) of the Canton of Berne, consisting of two investigating judges assigned exclusively to the investigation, under the authority of a cantonal attorney at the Berne Court of Appeal (Obergericht) and the indictments chamber (Anklagekammer) of that court. They were assisted by specialist police officers and considerable facilities were made available to them (secretariat, computer, archives). 9. In the period from March 1985 to June 1986 their investigation, which traced events back as far as 1977, gave rise to eighteen searches, including several at W.’s residence and the office of the companies he controlled. Documents in large quantities were found there, mostly in utter disorder, some in the cellar, some in the bathroom and even some in bin bags ready to be destroyed. W. had in fact altered the accounts of his companies, some of which were incidentally fictitious, in order to thwart possible investigations. On 3 April 1985 the authorities froze assets in seventeen banks and issued warrants relating to other credit institutions. They drew up a list of about two hundred accounts in all which were affected by the fraudulent dealings of the applicant and his accomplices. In 1985 and 1987 money and valuables belonging to the applicant and his co-accused were seized following orders or searches. These were dated 27 and 28 March, 3 April, 4 May, 2, 3 and 27 June, 5 September, 3 October and 25 November 1985, 16 and 19 January, 9 February, 5 March, 14 May, 2 July, 19 and 21 August and 1 December 1987. The investigators also had to have recourse to international judicial assistance, in particular from the Munich public prosecutor’s office. That office sent them a report dated 16 April 1987, as a result of which the Swiss authorities extended their inquiries to Germany and took over criminal proceedings instituted against W. in that country. On 11 December 1987 the investigating judges requested thirteen insolvency practitioners to provide documents relating to seventeen companies. The last of these reached them in December 1988 and January 1989. On 26 May 1988, in view of the urgency, they severed the proceedings against the applicant from those against two accomplices. 10. The applicant twice challenged the investigating judges. He also brought eleven appeals and two complaints against decisions by them restricting access to the case-file at the beginning of the investigation. The accused were eventually given access to nine-tenths of the file from May 1986 and the entire file from 22 October of that year. W. had meanwhile reacted by deciding on 11 April 1986 to make no further statements. On 28 June 1988 he complained of other irregularities, stating that documents had not been given to him and his lawyer had been unable to obtain free photocopies of them. The indictments chamber dismissed his complaint on 27 July 1988. After the committal for trial (see paragraph 13 below) the authorities on 13 October and 30 November 1988 and 3 January 1989 allowed the case-file to be consulted by the defence for nine, seven and five half-days respectively. There was another incident when W. was not permitted to be present at certain investigative acts. On 27 January 1987 the indictments chamber decided that in principle he had the right to attend these. His request of 18 December 1987 that there should be no supervision of the visits by his wife was dismissed by the indictments chamber on 16 February and the Federal Court on 19 May 1988. 11. During his pre-trial detention W. committed further offences, which resulted in an additional conviction for fraudulent bankruptcy and criminal mismanagement (see paragraph 24 below); the general meeting of a company controlled by him, which took place in prison on 11 October 1985 in the presence of a lawyer (advocate and notary), had allowed the latter to use a power of attorney to issue bonds secured on the property of the said company and used as security for the applicant’s personal debts. 12. Once the basic documentation had been collected and sorted, the authorities in October and July 1986 also ordered three expert reports, one from a psychiatrist and two from accountants, the latter following a defence request for evidence of 6 September 1985, the only such request made by them in the course of the investigation. The reports were filed on 22 December 1986 and in April 1987. The psychiatric report concluded that the applicant was fully criminally liable, and described him as a confidence trickster (Hochstapler) and an unrestrained hedonist (hemmungsloser Hedonist) who had no scruples about causing harm to others. 13. On 29 April 1988 the investigating judges declared, pursuant to Article 98 of the Berne Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 25 below), that they would request the cantonal attorney’s office to commit W. for trial before the Economic Criminal Court (Wirtschaftsstrafgericht) of the canton. The order committing for trial (Überweisungsbeschluß) was made on 2 September 1988. The investigators had carried out a total of approximately 350 interrogations. From 11 April 1986 to 12 July 1988 the applicant himself had been questioned thirty-six times, but he had always refused to answer the questions put to him (see paragraph 10 above). The transcripts recording the questions and noting his silence filled almost 700 pages. In September 1987 the main case-file comprised about 600 binders. At the time of the trial there were 711, together with the original documents which themselves took up over 120 metres of shelving. The amount of the damage had been estimated at over 50 million Swiss francs. B. The applicant’s applications for release 14. From 29 March 1985 to 18 May 1988, twenty-five applications for release were submitted by the persons in pre-trial detention in this case. Eight of them came from the applicant. The first of these, made on 24 May 1985, was dismissed by the indictments chamber on 1 July. The indictments chamber also dismissed on 22 July 1985 a complaint of 8 July and on 28 August a complaint of 2 August, relating respectively to the lawyer who had been appointed for W. and his visiting rights. 15. On 13 September 1985 the indictments chamber turned down a further application of 26 August 1985. A public law appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed on 7 November 1985, as that court considered that all the conditions to which pre-trial detention was subject under Article 111 of the Berne Code of Criminal Procedure had been fulfilled (see paragraph 25 below). The court felt that the serious suspicions against W. were supported by the case-file; moreover, he had transferred his residence to Monte Carlo, and his numerous stays in Germany, England, the United States of America and Anguilla also gave reason to fear that he might try to evade the Swiss judicial authorities; as to the very genuine risk of collusion, this resulted from the way in which the applicant’s various companies were entangled and from the large number of his associates. The Federal Court, however, invited the investigators to act with diligence and in particular to question as soon as possible the persons likely to collude with the applicant, as in the court’s opinion the complexity of the facts alone could not justify detention for several years. 16. W. brought a third application for release on 17 March 1986. It was dismissed by the indictments chamber in a decision of 4 June 1986, which was upheld by the Federal Court on 25 August, following a public law appeal. The Federal Court said that even a summary reading of certain transcripts of interrogations showed that there was serious suspicion against the applicant of multiple fraud and fraudulent bankruptcy; he was wrong in claiming that this suspicion was unfounded in the specific cases cited by the indictments chamber in justifying the already considerable duration of the detention in issue. Moreover, the danger of absconding and that of collusion still both persisted, the former because of the applicant’s good relations with foreign countries and his stated intention of starting a new life in the United States, and the latter in the light of his conduct before his arrest and during the investigation. However, as the last of the co-accused had now been arrested and the principal witnesses had already made statements, this ground could no longer be relied upon without specifying the collusive acts which were feared. Furthermore, W. was primarily responsible for the length of his detention; the lack of any proper accounts of his companies had made it extremely difficult to identify the financial transfers by means of which the companies had been burdened for personal ends. Despite this, the investigating judges had worked intensively. All things considered, the detention complained of did not yet appear to be too long. It was nevertheless disturbing that not much progress had been made with the systematic processing of the documents and the production of a report for the purpose of indicting the applicant. Secondly, there was still some doubt as to whether expert reports on the accounting and psychiatric aspects were needed. A close watch had to be kept on these points. 17. A fourth application for release was made on 12 December 1986, and dismissed by the indictments chamber on 20 January 1987. The applicant brought a public law appeal against this decision; he complained of the time taken to produce the accounting report, and of the alleged inability of the authorities to complete the file. The Federal Court gave its ruling on 24 March 1987. It considered that the applicant’s disregard of the elementary rules of bookkeeping was the reason why it had not been possible to complete the expert report earlier; and the accusation against W. was precisely that he had mingled funds of his various companies. Since the judgment of 25 August 1986 (see paragraph 16 above) the authorities had taken account of its observations on the processing of the documents, so that in this respect the investigation could not be criticised, bearing in mind in particular the very large number of documents to be classified. That the authorities had entrusted the investigation to a team of two investigating judges also showed the great importance they attached to it. As to the psychiatric report and accountancy reports, which were moreover on the point of being filed, there had been no delay in drawing them up, since W. was refusing to answer any questions at all. In short, the detention in issue had not yet exceeded the maximum period allowed. The court added, however: "... a practice according to which an accused who was suspected of serious economic offences but not of acts of violence necessarily had to remain in detention until final judgment in his case, merely because of a general risk of absconding, would not be compatible with the fundamental right of personal freedom ... . It should also be taken into account in this respect that the incentive to abscond generally decreases as the proportion of time already spent in detention increases. The investigating judges, the public prosecutor’s office and the indictments chamber will therefore, after carrying out the few investigative acts in respect of which a certain danger of collusion can still be presumed, but at the latest after a period of detention of two and a half years, have to consider the applicant’s release subject to appropriate substitute measures within the meaning of Article 111a of the Berne Code of Criminal Procedure. The case would be different only if specific indications of [W.’s] intention to abscond were by then present. The risk of repeated offending ... would on the other hand probably not be of relevance as a ground for detention in the case of the applicant, who has no previous convictions." 18. On 3 August 1987 the applicant once more requested the indictments chamber to terminate his detention. This was refused in a decision of 4 September 1987. The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s public law appeal on 29 October 1987. In its opinion the slowing down of the investigation, noted since its last judgment (see paragraph 17 above), was not open to criticism, as the Swiss authorities had in the meantime taken over the proceedings brought against W. by the Munich public prosecutor’s office (see paragraph 9 above), and this had entailed additional work. In this respect the investigators could not be blamed either for having often questioned the applicant on these proceedings despite his refusal to make a statement; their sole aim had been to allow W. to exercise his rights of defence. No failure to observe the requirement of acting swiftly had resulted; rather it was the applicant’s attitude which amounted to delaying the investigation by any legal means. In view of the minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment which the applicant was likely to receive, the pre-trial detention of two years and seven months had in any event not yet reached the critical level. The Federal Court also invited the investigating judges to reconsider, by the end of January 1988, the length of the detention in issue. On 31 January 1988 they took a decision to extend it (Haftbelassungsbeschluß). 19. The applicant’s sixth application for release had meanwhile been made to the indictments chamber on 2 December 1987. It had dismissed it on 9 December on the grounds that nothing had changed since the Federal Court’s last judgment of 29 October 1987 (see paragraph 18 above); it considered that there was still a danger of absconding and collusion. W. did not appeal against this decision. 20. On 1 February 1988 he once more requested his release. The indictments chamber refused this on 18 February, and he appealed to the Federal Court. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 25 April 1988. It held that the indictments chamber had not breached the Constitution or the Convention in considering that there was still a danger of absconding; in his application of 1 February 1988, W. had moreover refused to provide a security. Apart from the applicant himself, the authorities were also partly responsible for the delays in the investigation; they had put forward in explanation reasons - such as the taking over of the German file (see paragraph 9 above) and the different charges against the various co-accused - which they had already been aware of on 13 August 1987, when they said that the investigation would be completed in early 1988. These delays admittedly had not brought about an excessive prolongation of the deprivation of liberty in issue, but in the Federal Court’s opinion it was necessary to close the investigation as quickly as possible. The Federal Court said: "The judge deciding on detention may prolong the pre-trial detention only to the extent that its duration does not come too close to the sentence to be expected in the specific case; he must not, for example, take the possible maximum sentence as a reference point. Great attention must also be paid to this limit because the trial court might be inclined to take the length of pre-trial detention into account as one factor in determining the sentence. To this extent there is thus a sort of absolute maximum length of pre-trial detention ... . However, even the European Convention institutions allow detention for several years in cases which are both highly complex and also subject to heavy sentences ..." In this instance the length of the detention had not yet reached the critical level, as the total sentence which could be expected was now considerably more than five years’ imprisonment. 21. On 18 May 1988 the applicant submitted his eighth application for release; he supplemented this on 7 June 1988 by offering a security of a maximum of 30,000 Swiss francs (CHF). The indictments chamber dismissed the application on 27 June 1988, inter alia on the grounds that he had not given any information on the third party who would pay the money and that the sum appeared derisory in view of the size of the case and the personality of the defendant. On a public law appeal by the applicant, the Federal Court quashed the decision on the grounds that Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention had been violated, as W. had not had an opportunity to reply to the arguments of the investigating judge and the cantonal attorney before the indictments chamber. 22. Rehearing the application, the indictments chamber on 6 September 1988 refused to release the applicant, who again appealed to the Federal Court. That court gave judgment on 15 November 1988; it considered that at this stage of the proceedings, after the end of the investigation and the committal for trial (see paragraph 13 above), pre-trial detention on the ground of a risk of collusion could only be justified by specific evidence, such as in this case the applicant’s personality and the numerous examples of forgery and interference with witnesses already shown to have been done by him in specific cases. It quashed the decision, however, on the grounds that the indictments chamber, when assessing the maximum permissible period of the detention in issue, had omitted to consider whether there were special circumstances in W.’s case which meant that the possibility of his conditional release should be taken into account. 23. On 10 January 1989 the indictments chamber dismissed the application of 18 May 1988 (see paragraph 21 above) for the third time. The Federal Court upheld its decision on 23 February 1989: having regard to the number and nature of the offences the applicant was accused of, and to his conduct during the investigation and the conclusions of the psychiatric report (see paragraph 12 above), the indictments chamber had been right to conclude that there were no reasons making conditional release appear very probable. C. The applicant’s trial 24. The trial before the Economic Criminal Court (see paragraph 13 above) opened on 17 February 1989 and ended on 30 March 1989 with the applicant being convicted and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment and a fine of CHF 10,000, for offences including fraud on a professional basis (gewerbsmäßiger Betrug), fraudulent bankruptcy (betrügerischer Konkurs), forgery of documents (Urkundenfälschung) and aggravated criminal mismanagement (qualifizierte ungetreue Geschäftsführung). The 1,465 days spent in pre-trial detention were deducted from the main sentence. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 25. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Gesetz über das Strafverfahren) of the Canton of Berne provides that: Article 98 "When the investigating judge regards the investigation as sufficient, he shall notify this to the parties whose addresses are known. If it is for the investigating judge and the district attorney to decide on committal, the investigating judge shall state whether he intends to request that the proceedings be stayed or discontinued or the accused be committed for trial. The parties may, within a period from such notification determined by the judge, apply in writing, giving brief reasons, for specified further investigative measures or additional questions and express their opinion on the outcome of the proceedings. If the investigative measures applied for are ordered, the parties may be present at their implementation." Article 111 "During the preliminary investigation the accused shall as a rule remain at liberty. The investigating judge shall however be empowered to arrest him if there are specific and serious grounds for suspecting him as perpetrator or accomplice, and in addition there are reasons for supposing (a) that there is a risk of absconding, or (b) that the accused would abuse his liberty in order to frustrate or endanger the discovery of the true facts of the matter, or (c) that the accused, if he has intentionally committed a further criminal offence (Verbrechen oder Vergehen) during the proceedings, will commit further criminal offences. A risk of absconding shall be presumed if the accused has no fixed residence in Switzerland. ..." 26. According to the Swiss Federal Court, the unwritten constitutional right to individual freedom is to be interpreted in the light of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention and the case-law of the Strasbourg institutions, and requires that pre-trial detention must not be excessively prolonged. Each case must be assessed individually, with the accused’s right to liberty being balanced against the State’s right to bring criminal proceedings and enforce sentences. If the length of the detention is excessive, the detainee must be released even if serious suspicions and the danger of absconding still subsist (Decisions of the Swiss Federal Court, 108 Ia 66; 107 Ia 257/258; 105 Ia 29/30). PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 27. Mr W. applied to the Commission on 20 September 1988. He complained of the length of his pre-trial detention. The Commission declared the application (no. 14379/88) admissible on 9 October 1990. In its report of 10 September 1991 (made under Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion by nineteen votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention. The full text of the Commission’s opinion is reproduced as an annex to this judgment [] . AS TO THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 PARA. 3 (art. 5-3) 28. The applicant claimed that the length of his pre-trial detention had been in breach of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3), which reads as follows: "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article (art. 5-1-c) ... 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 Government contested this view, whereas the Commission agreed with it. 29. The period to be taken into consideration began on 27 March 1985, the date of W.’s arrest, and ended on 30 March 1989 with his conviction by the Berne Economic Criminal Court (see paragraphs 7 and 24 above). It thus lasted for four years and three days. 30. The Commission’s opinion was based on the idea that Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) implies a maximum length of pre-trial detention. The Court cannot subscribe to this opinion, which moreover finds no support in its case-law. That case-law in fact states that the reasonable time cannot be assessed in abstracto (see, mutatis mutandis, the Stögmüller v. Austria judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, para. 4). As the Court has already found in the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, the reasonableness of an accused person’s continued detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features (Series A no. 7, p. 24, para. 10). Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty. It falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to examine all the circumstances arguing for or against the existence of such a requirement and to set them out in their decisions on the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3). The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices: the Court must then establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, as the most recent authority, the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, para. 84). A. The reasons for continued detention 31. In refusing to release W. the Swiss courts relied, in addition to the serious suspicion against him, on three principal grounds, which the Government also argued from: the danger of absconding, the risk of collusion and the need to prevent the accused committing further offences. 1. The danger of absconding 32. According to the applicant, the longer his detention lasted the more the likelihood of his absconding from justice was reduced. After a certain time it was in his interest to serve his sentence which, having regard to the possibility of conditional release, would hardly exceed the detention already undergone. He added that he had offered to provide a security and had not taken advantage of prison leave granted after his conviction to abscond. 33. The Court points out that the danger of absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the possible sentence; it must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify pre-trial detention (see, as the most recent authority, the Tomasi judgment cited above, Series A no. 241-A, p. 37, para. 98). In this context regard must be had in particular to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, his links with the State in which he is being prosecuted and his international contacts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 39, para. 10). In their carefully reasoned decisions the Bernese courts based themselves on specific characteristics of the applicant’s situation: after transferring his residence from Switzerland to Monte Carlo, he had frequently visited Germany, England, the United States and the island of Anguilla (where he was supposed to be the owner of a bank); he had thus established numerous close connections with foreign countries. Furthermore, he had stated on several occasions that he wished to go and live in the United States. There were certain indications that he still had considerable funds at his disposal outside his own country and possessed several different passports. As a solitary man who had no need of contacts, he would have had no difficulty in living in concealment outside Switzerland. The Federal Court examined these reasons carefully on 7 November 1985, 25 August 1986 and 25 April 1988 (see paragraphs 15, 16 and 20 above). On the last of these dates in particular it acknowledged that the danger of absconding decreased as the length of detention increased, as already noted by the European Court (see, inter alia, the Neumeister judgment cited above, Series A no. 8, p. 39, para. 10). However, it considered that the factors specified by the indictments chamber left no real doubt as to W.’s intention of absconding and could legitimately suffice to demonstrate that such a danger still existed. There is no reason for the Court to reach a different conclusion. In this case the investigation constantly brought to light further offences which were likely to result in a more severe sentence. In addition, the circumstances of the case and the applicant’s character entitled the relevant courts to decline his offer to provide security of 18 May 1988 (something which he was still refusing to do a short time previously, on 1 February): both the amount (CHF 30,000) and the unknown provenance of the money to be paid meant that it was not a fit guarantee that the applicant would decide not to abscond in order not to forfeit it (see paragraph 21 above). Finally, the fact that once convicted the applicant returned to prison after each leave cannot retrospectively invalidate the view taken by the courts. 2. The danger of collusion 34. W. argued that the risk of collusion could in any event not have continued beyond 29 April 1988, the date when the investigating judges declared that they would seek committal for trial (see paragraph 13 above); at the latest on that date the case-file must have progressed to a point where such a danger had been dispelled. 35. The Court readily understands that the authorities may consider it necessary to keep a suspect in prison, at least at the beginning of an investigation, in order to prevent him from confusing it, especially in a complicated case like this one where manifold difficult inquiries are necessary. In the long term, however, the requirements of the investigation no longer suffice - even in such a case - to justify such detention: in the normal course of events the risks alleged diminish with the passing of time as inquiries are effected, statements taken and verifications carried out (see the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, p. 16, para. 43). 36. In order to demonstrate that a substantial risk of collusion existed and continued to exist until the beginning of the trial, the indictments chamber referred essentially to the exceptional extent of the case, the extraordinary quantity of documents seized and their intentionally confused state, and the large number of witnesses to be questioned, including witnesses abroad. It based a secondary argument on the personality of the applicant, whose behaviour both before and after his arrest reflected his intention of systematically deleting all evidence of liability, for example by falsifying or destroying accounts. According to the indictments chamber, there were also specific indications justifying the fear that he might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts, which would also be facilitated by the thorough entanglement of the sixty-odd companies controlled by him and his influence on their employees, namely eliminating items of evidence which were still hidden but whose probable existence followed from other documents, manufacturing false evidence, or conniving with witnesses. Finally, the indictments chamber noted the extension in April 1987 of the investigation to offences which had been committed, and had originally been the subject of proceedings, in Germany. The Federal Court was appealed to several times, and on each occasion examined scrupulously whether these considerations did indeed make continued detention necessary. Admittedly, it invited the investigating judges on 7 November 1985, 4 June 1986, 24 March 1987 and 25 April 1988 to act with diligence and obtain the missing documents and statements as soon as possible (see paragraphs 15-17 and 20 above), but at no time did it exclude the existence of a danger of collusion. On the contrary, it confirmed that such a risk was present even during the period following the close of the investigation and the committal for trial (2 September 1988). It had regard not only to W.’s personality and antecedents, but also primarily to the circumstance that, according to the case-file, W. had in the context of other proceedings had exonerating evidence manufactured, documents antedated and witnesses manipulated (see paragraph 22 above). Here too the Court sees no reason for disagreeing with the Federal Court’s opinion. Consequently, the national authorities were entitled to regard the circumstances of the case as justification for using the risk of collusion as a further ground for the detention in issue. 3. The danger of repetition of offences 37. The Government argued that there had also been a risk that the applicant would commit further offences if released. Although the indictments chamber considered that it was still reasonable to regard it as necessary to prevent him so doing, the Federal Court did not examine the impugned decisions on this point, as the dangers of absconding and collusion in themselves justified the continued detention. The Court shares this opinion. 4. Summary 38. To sum up, the two above-mentioned dangers were relevant and sufficient reasons in this case; they were not mere "residual" risks, as the Commission appears to have thought (see paragraph 145 of its report). B. The conduct of the proceedings 39. The conduct of the proceedings must also be examined (see paragraph 30 above). 40. The applicant complained that the investigating judges had caused substantial delays in the investigation: they had continued to question him for weeks on end even though he had made it clear to them on 11 April 1986 that, pursuant to his right of silence, he would not answer any more of their questions. In addition, they had not had the necessary infrastructure for the investigation, which had moreover been complex up to a point only, as in the absence of accounts there had not been any documents to check. 41. The Government for their part stressed that the case was the most difficult case of economic crime so far dealt with in the Canton of Berne. It exceeded by far all other cases of the same type, both in extent and in complexity; the documents collected took up 120 metres of shelf space. Moreover, no other pre-trial detention had ever lasted so long. The authorities had neglected nothing in order to complete the case-file and had even established a unit consisting of two investigating judges who were themselves assisted by persons assigned exclusively to that unit, including two specialist policemen and four secretaries; a cantonal attorney was in charge of supervising them. There had also been substantial technical resources, including computer equipment. A total of 350 interrogations, including 36 of the applicant, and some 30 decisions on appeals by the applicant had been needed to reach the final judgment, which was 1,100 pages long. The applicant had moreover not made any complaint at all on the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. The sole aim of his repeated interrogations had been to allow him to exercise his rights of defence with respect to each new piece of evidence disclosed by the inquiry. 42. The Court notes that as early as 7 November 1985 the Federal Court, when verifying the proportionality of the length of the impugned deprivation of liberty, gave consideration to the conduct of the proceedings. After an examination it concluded that W.’s complaints in this respect were not substantiated (see paragraph 40 above). Fearing an overlong period of pre-trial detention, it regularly urged the cantonal authorities to act with all speed and even gave them specific instructions, and also observed that these had been complied with. Consequently, despite certain worries, it never regarded the time spent by the applicant in prison as excessive. It considered that the applicant was primarily responsible for the slow pace of the investigation: there had been great difficulties in reconstructing the financial situation of his companies, as a result of the state of their accounts. It stated that things had become even more difficult when he decided to refuse to make any statement, thereby delaying the progress of the case (see paragraph 10 above). Having regard to the intensive continuous review thus carried out by the highest national court, the Court agrees in substance with the Government’s arguments summarised in paragraph 41 above. It notes that the right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must not hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out their tasks with proper care (see among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Wemhoff and Tomasi judgments, cited above, Series A no. 7, p. 26, para. 17, and no. 241-A, p. 52, para. 102). In agreement with the Commission on this point, it finds no period during which the investigators did not carry out their inquiries with the necessary promptness, nor was there any delay caused by possible shortage of personnel or equipment. Consequently, it appears that the length of the detention in issue was essentially attributable to the exceptional complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant. To be sure, he was not obliged to co-operate with the authorities, but he must bear the consequences which his attitude may have caused for the progress of the investigation. C. Conclusion 43. The Court accordingly concludes that there has not been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).   Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 January 1993.   For the President Franz MATSCHER Judge     Marc-André EISSEN Registrar   In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and Rule 53 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment: (a) dissenting opinion of Mr Pettiti; (b) dissenting opinion of Mr Walsh and Loizou; (c) dissenting opinion of Mr De Meyer.   F.M. M.-A.E. DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI (Translation) I have voted for finding a violation of Article 5 (art. 5), I dissociate myself entirely from the vote of the majority of the Chamber, and I regret that the case was not referred to the plenary Court. In my opinion, the decision in the case of W. in fact departs from the traditional case-law of the European Court on the presumption of innocence and the restrictions to be imposed on pre-trial detention measures. The decision which has been taken, even if it applies only to W.’s case, could be interpreted as approving pre-trial detention of four years in cases relating to economic legislation: bankruptcies, offences against company law, criminal mismanagement, etc. The philosophy of Article 5 (art. 5) and of the European Convention leads me to adopt such a dissenting opinion. Article 5 (art. 5) is an article which protects personal freedom and limits pre-trial detention to specific cases, which must necessarily be given a restrictive interpretation. Article 5 in combination with Article 6 (art. 5, art. 6) is an important provision of the Convention for protecting the presumption of innocence. The Court, whether in plenary session or sitting as a Chamber, had always adopted a strict approach to reviewing compliance with Article 5 (art. 5), tending to limit the length of pre-trial detention. In the present case the reasoning of the Swiss Federal Court has prevailed. In my opinion the Federal Court wrongly adopted a criterion for assessment with respect to the risk of absconding which adds to the wording of Article 5 (art. 5). One cannot indeed reverse the burden of proof and requi