CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 novembre 1999

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 12 November 1999 Debboub alias Husseini Ali v. France - 37786/97 Judgment 9.11.1999 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand (4 years 2 months 10 days): violation Facts : On 8 November 1994 the applicant was arrested and detained pending trial in connection with a police operation concerning a support network for Islamic terrorist groups. His trial before the criminal court began on 1 September 1998 and ended on 22 January 1999; he was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. His pre-trial detention therefore lasted four years, two months and ten days. Orders for his continued detention were made on 9 occasions. Each of his applications for release on bail following the orders for   his continued detention was systematically dismissed. Law : The considerations that were relevant to the initial decisions to keep the applicant in custody, namely the risk of his absconding or colluding with other defendants and the danger he represented for public order, became progressively less persuasive and did not suffice to justify such a lengthy period of detention pending trial. Moreover, in the later decisions the courts merely affirmed, but did not establish, that there was a risk that co-defendants would collude. While it was true that the case was complex, the courts do not appear to have acted with due expedition; for example, the applicant was questioned on average only twice yearly during the investigation. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: The Court held that a finding of a violation constituted of itself sufficient just satisfaction: It awarded the applicant 30,000 French Francs for costs and expenses.   © 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