CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mars 1995

.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 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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 1995 Quinn v. France - 18580/91 Judgment 22.3.1995 Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-f Extradition Lawfulness and length of detention prior to and during extradition proceedings: 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.   Continuation of detention after a decision requiring detainee's immediate release Some delay in executing a decision is understandable, but in instant case applicant had remained in detention for eleven hours without any move being made to commence execution of decision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Detention with a view to extradition Detention with a view to extradition in principle justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) and no abuse of procedure - however, applicant's detention with a view to extradition unusually long - deprivation of liberty under that sub-paragraph justified only for as long as extradition proceedings are being conducted - in instant case at different stages of the proceedings delays of sufficient length to render total duration excessive - applicant's surrender postponed pursuant to Article 19 of the European Convention on Extradition (criminal proceedings conducted in France at the same time). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Article 5 § 3 not applicable to detention pending extradition -only applicant's detention on remand in connection with the domestic criminal proceedings could be taken into account. Starting-point: date of applicant's arrest. End: date of decision ordering his release. Total: one year. B.   Reasonableness Length not excessive - no negligence on the part of national authorities. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION In view of the finding that there had been no abuse of procedure, not necessary to re-examine the same facts. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: claim allowed in part. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (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