CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 novembre 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. November-December 1991 Koster v. the Netherlands - 12843/87 Judgment 28.11.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Brought promptly before judge or other officer Appearance before the Military Court of a conscript placed in detention on remand during military manoeuvres: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION Use in French text of word " aussitôt ": confirms that the degree of flexibility in the interpretation and application of the notion of "promptness" is limited – notion to be assessed in each case according to its special features, but significance attached to such features can never be taken to the point of impairing very essence of the right to judicial review guaranteed under Article 5 §   3. In this instance, military manoeuvres, which took place at periodical intervals and were therefore foreseeable, did not justify any delay in the proceedings – even taking into account the demands of military life and justice, applicant's appearance before the Military Court did not comply with requirement of promptness laid down in Article 5 §   3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement. Conclusion : respondent State to pay to the applicant specified sum (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes