CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 décembre 2011

.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 } .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. 147 December 2011 Zandbergs v. Latvia - 71092/01 Judgment 20.12.2011 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Refusal to take detention abroad pending extradition into account when determining whether maximum period of detention on remand had been exceeded: inadmissible Facts – In 1993 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. In 1994 he left Latvia for the United States of America in breach of an undertaking not to leave his residence. In 1998 the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request with the United States Department of Justice for the applicant’s extradition on a murder charge. In September 1998 the United States authorities took the applicant into custody pending extradition proceedings. In December 1999 he was convoyed to Frankfurt Airport (Germany) and handed over to the Latvian authorities. On the same day he was brought to Riga and placed in prison. Subsequently, his detention on remand was extended several times by court order. The applicant appealed, stating that the time he had spent in custody in the United States had to be counted as a part of the overall time of his pre-trial detention and that, consequently, his detention had exceeded the maximum period permitted by the Code of Criminal Procedure. His appeal was dismissed. In April 2003 the applicant was found guilty of organising murder and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The time he had spent in pre-trial detention or custody both in Latvia and in the United States was counted as part of his sentence. His conviction was upheld on appeal. Law – Article 5 § 3: In so far as the applicant had complained about the refusal of the Latvian courts to consider the time he had spent in custody in the United States as part of his detention on remand in Latvia, no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable at the material time provided for the inclusion of time served abroad in pre-trial detention or custody in the overall length of detention on remand. On the contrary, the new provisions of the Code explicitly excluded such possibility. In principle, neither Article 5 §   3 nor any other provision of the Convention created a general obligation for a State party to take into account the length of pre-trial detention suffered in a third State. Conclusion : inadmissible (partly manifestly ill-founded and partly incompatible ratione materiae ). The Court also found violations of Article 5 §   3 (length of pre-trial detention in Latvia) and Article 5 §   4 and no violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention.   © 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