CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 décembre 2002

.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. 48 December 2002 N.C. v. Italy [GC] - 24952/94 Judgment 18.12.2002 [GC] Article 5 Article 5-5 Compensation Absence of right to compensation in respect of allegedly unlawful detention: no violation Facts – The applicant, technical director of a company, was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by an investigating judge on the ground that there was substantial evidence that he was guilty of abuse of power and corruption. The applicant lodged a request for release with the District Court, submitting that there was no substantial evidence of guilt, as required by Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court dismissed the request, finding that there was sustantial evidence of guilt and a danger of the applicant committing further offences. However, it placed the applicant under house arrest rather than in detention. The applicant applied to the investigating judge to have this order revoked, as he had resigned from his post as technical director with the company. The judge rejected the request. On appeal, however, the District Court ordered the applicant’s release, holding that in view of his resignation, the time which had elapsed and his character there were no longer any grounds for keeping him under house arrest. The applicant was subsequently acquitted on the ground that the alleged facts had never occurred. Law Government’s preliminary objection ( non-exhaustion ): As to the failure of the applicant to apply for compensation, Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for compensation when an accused is acquitted because the alleged facts never occurred. The Court’s decision on admissibility was adopted in 1998, before the applicant’s acquittal and these circumstances did not allow the Government to comply with the obligation to raise pleas of inadmissibility at the admissibility stage. However, over two years elapsed between the time the Government could have become aware of the acquittal and the raising of the objection. Such a delay was unreasonably long and no explanation had been provided. The Government were therefore estopped from raising a preliminary objection. Article 5 § 5: The Italian authorities did not hold that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been unlawful or contrary to Article 5 of the Convention but it was unnecessary to examine whether there had been a breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) or Article 5 § 3. Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided a right to compensation for anyone acquitted on the ground, inter alia , that the alleged facts had never occurred. The applicant was acquitted on that ground and could then have claimed compensation. The Italian legal system thus afforded him, with a sufficient degree of certainty, the right to compensation in respect of his pre-trial detention. While that right arose as a result of his acquittal and would apparently not have arisen had he been convicted, in the circumstances of the case he had the possibility of applying for compensation, without having to prove that his detention had been unlawful, since pre-trial detention could have been considered “unjust” for the purposes of Italian law, independent of any consideration of lawfulness. In these circumstances, the compensation was indissociable from any compensation to which the applicant might have been entitled under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (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