CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. September 1998 I.A. v. France - 28213/95 Judgment 23.9.1998 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: date when applicant was charged and placed in detention on remand. End: date of conviction, notwithstanding retrospective effect in French law of Court of Cassation’s judgment quashing that conviction. Total: just over five years and three months. B.   Reasonableness of length of detention Reference to Court’s case-law. Persistence of reasonable suspicion that applicant had committed offence concerned not contested. Other grounds cited by judicial authorities – need to preserve public order from disturbance caused by offence, to ensure that applicant remained at disposal of judicial authorities, to prevent repetition of offence and to protect accused, and risk of collusion with accomplices, of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and of evidence being destroyed – lost their relevance with the passage of time. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: date when applicant was charged. End: proceedings still pending. Total: on date of adoption of Court’s judgment, approximately six years and nine months. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings Reference to Court’s case-law. Protractedness of preparatory investigation: conduct of authorities handling investigation not exempt from criticism, but case was “factually” complex and applicant contributed substantially to length of investigation. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: No compensation required. B.   Costs and expenses :Reimbursement of costs and expenses for proceedings before Court. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum for costs and expenses (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