CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 1997

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. November 1997 K.-F. v. Germany - 25629/94 Judgment 27.11.1997 Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Article 5-1-c Reasonable suspicion Lawfulness of arrest and detention: 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 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Applicant had raised his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in substance in the German courts – Koblenz Court of Appeal had examined, at least in part, question of lawfulness of applicant’s arrest and detention – remedy used by applicant had been effective and adequate. Conclusion : objection dismissed (seven votes to two). B.   Merits of the complaint Court could, in principle, follow the reasoning of the Koblenz Court of Appeal in its judgments of 21 May 1992 and 30 November 1993 – applicant had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, within meaning of Article 5 §   1   (c). Arrest and detention effected also for purpose of bringing person concerned before the competent legal authority, as laid down in that Article. Court considered various grounds for arrest and detention relied on by Koblenz Court of Appeal, in particular the one based on Article 127 § 1 and Article 163 b of Code of Criminal Procedure: (i) Court of Appeal had found that applicant’s arrest and detention had been lawful and the Court saw no reason to come to a different conclusion; (ii) applicant’s detention from evening of 4 July to morning of 5 July had been justifiable; (iii) on the other hand, as Koblenz Court of Appeal had indicated in its judgment of 30 November 1993, length of time applicant had spent in detention had exceeded legal maximum laid down by Article 163 c § 3 of Code of Criminal Procedure – in certain circumstances, there might be some limited delay before a detained person was released – however, in the case before the Court, maximum period of twelve hours’ detention for purposes of checking identity had been laid down by law and was absolute – it had been for authorities responsible for the detention to take all necessary precautions to ensure that permitted duration was not exceeded. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: no causal link between violation complained of and alleged pecuniary damage. B.   Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation constituted sufficient compensation. C.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis. 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