CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 août 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 9 August 1999 Vilborg Yrsa Sigurđardóttir v. Iceland (dec.) - 32451/96 Decision 24.8.1999 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Test of probability of guilt applied in determining entitlement to compensation following acquittal: admissible The applicant and her cohabitee, P., were arrested in the course of an investigation in a drug-related case. P. was kept in custody but the applicant was released the next day. She was interrogated again at a later stage and arrested without any court order. The order remanding her in custody was issued the following day. She was released a month afterwards, the detention order having been prolonged. The Supreme Court eventually found P. guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to imprisonment. The public prosecutor then issued an indictment against the applicant, on the ground that she had given money to P. knowing that he was importing drugs and that he could get her some. However, she was acquitted and she subsequently decided to claim compensation for her arrest and detention. Her claims were rejected. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision. The test applied was whether it was more likely that the applicant was guilty than innocent. Admissible under Article 6 § 2.   © 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