CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 93 January 2007 Solmaz v. Turkey - 27561/02 Judgment 16.1.2007 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Date when time starts to run for the purposes of the six-month time-limit in cases of consecutive periods of pre-trial detention: violation   Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Date when time starts to run for the purposes of the six-month time-limit in cases of consecutive periods of pre-trial detention: violation   Facts : The applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation in January 1994 and remanded in custody. His requests for release pending trial were rejected. In June 2000 he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a State Security Court. That decision was quashed by the Court of Cassation in May 2001 on procedural grounds and the case was remitted to a lower court for further examination. The applicant remained in detention. He was released on bail in February 2002 on medical grounds and in view of the time he had already spent in custody. The proceedings were still pending when the Court   gave its judgment. Law : The applicant's detention pending trial began with his arrest in January 1994. He was detained within the meaning of Article   5(3) until his initial conviction by a State Security Court in June 2000. From that date until May 2001, when the Court of Cassation quashed his conviction, the applicant was detained “after conviction by a competent court”, within the meaning of Article   5(1)(a). That period of detention therefore fell outside the scope of Article   5(3). From May 2001 until his release on bail in   February 2002, the applicant was again in pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article   5(3). The multiple consecutive periods of detention had to be regarded as a whole, and the six-month period only started to run from the end of the last period of pre-trial detention, that is to say February 2002. In order to assess the reasonableness of the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court made a global evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article   5(3). After deduction of the periods when the applicant had been detained after conviction within the meaning of Article   5(1)(a) from the total time he had been deprived of his liberty, the period to be taken   into consideration was nearly six years and eight months. As to whether that period was reasonable, the Court held that the grounds given for the applicant's pre-trial detention were not “sufficient” and “relevant” to justify holding him in custody for such a long period. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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