CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 2001

.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. 26 January 2001 N.C. v. Italy - 24952/94 Judgment 11.1.2001 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-5 Compensation Absence of right to compensation, following acquittal, in respect of allegedly unlawful detention: no violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 5 September 2001] Facts : The applicant, technical director of a company, was arrested on 3 November 1993 on suspicion of abuse of power and corruption. The suspicion was based on the statements of five witnesses and an expert opinion. The applicant immediately filed an application for release, arguing that there were no serious indications of guilt, as required by Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the District Court rejected the application, considering that there were serious indications of guilt and that there was a danger of the applicant committing further crimes. It placed the applicant under house arrest. The applicant sought to have this order revoked, arguing that he had resigned from his position with the company, but the judge for preliminary investigations rejected the request on 3 December 1993. On appeal, the District Court ordered the applicant's release, considering that since he had resigned there were no longer any grounds for keeping him in detention. It later acquitted him. Law : Article 5 § 5 – The applicability of this provision presupposes a violation of one of the other paragraphs of Article 5. The applicant's detention fell under Article 5 § 1 (c) and it has to be determined whether his detention was contrary to that provision. Firstly, as to whether there existed serious evidence of the applicant's guilt, the Court's task is to examine whether the elements of which the authorities had knowledge at the relevant time were reasonably sufficient. The authorities did not draw any manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary conclusions from the available elements and there is no reason to doubt that these elements were sufficient for the authorities to believe that the applicant had committed the offence. Secondly, as to the danger of further crimes being committed, the reason given by the judge for the preliminary investigations – that the applicant remained technical director of the company and was thus in a position to commit other crimes – is not manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary. The mere fact that the decision did not include an explicit consideration of the applicant's clean record or the absence of any allegation of re-offending after the alleged offence is not sufficient to conclude that these elements were not taken into account. Moreover, the subsequent decision of the District Court, while concise, fulfilled the requirement that the particular circumstances of the case be taken into account. Consequently, the authorities' conclusion that there was a genuine risk of re-offending was not arbitrary, and the applicant's detention up until 2 December 1993 was in conformity with Article 5 § 1 (c) and no separate issue arises under Article 6 § 2. With regard to the applicant's detention after 2 December 1993, it was lawful under domestic law and the mere fact that the decision of 3 December was later set aside does not affect the lawfulness. The ground relied on – that despite his resignation the applicant could use his professional skills elsewhere – was not irrelevant or arbitrary and the detention was not incompatible with Article   5 §   1   (c). Finally, with regard to the conformity of the length of the applicant's detention with Article 5 § 3, the period was only one and a half months and the reasons given were both relevant and sufficient. Moreover, the detention was not unduly prolonged by the way in which the case was handled. Since the applicant's detention was not contrary to either Article 5 § 1 or Article 5 § 3, there has been no violation of Article 5 §   5. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © 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