CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 mars 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. March 1997 Muller v. France - 21802/93 Judgment 17.3.1997 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of detention pending trial: 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: when applicant taken into police custody. End: judgment of the Assize Court. Total: nearly four years. B.   Reasonableness of length of detention Complexity of case: amalgamation of proceedings conducted in three different jurisdictions simultaneously - however, as soon as he was arrested, applicant had admitted the offences of which he was accused. Risk of collusion: must have disappeared by the time criminal investigation was closed. Risk of applicant's absconding: its reality not apparent from decisions not to release applicant - could not be gauged solely on basis of the severity of sentence faced. Risk of applicant's reoffending: reference to a person's antecedents cannot suffice to justify refusing release. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: length of detention pending trial had been deducted from sentence served. Non-pecuniary damage: present judgment constituted sufficient compensation. B.   Costs and expenses Claim allowed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a 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