CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 janvier 1993

.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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sD7CE228C { width:27.11pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; 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. January 1993 W. v. Switzerland - 14379/88 Judgment 26.1.1993 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Release pending trial Length of pre-trial detention: no 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.] Period to be taken into consideration: from applicant's arrest to his conviction by Berne Economic Criminal Court - total of four years and three days. 1.   Justification of the detention Refusal to release applicant based on three main grounds. a)   Danger of absconding: Berne courts based themselves on specific characteristics of applicant's situation - in Federal Court's opinion, these left no real doubt as to W.'s intention to abscond and could legitimately suffice to demonstrate that such a danger still existed - nothing called for different conclusion by Court. (b)   Danger of collusion: Federal Court examined reasons given by indictments chamber and at no time excluded existence of danger of collusion - no reason for Court to disagree with this opinion. (c)   Danger of repetition of offences: no need to examine impugned decisions on this point, as dangers of absconding and collusion in themselves justified continued detention. (d)   Summary: reasons given for refusing applications for release both relevant and sufficient. 2.   Conduct of the proceedings Court found no period during which investigators had not carried out inquiries with necessary promptness, nor any delay caused by possible shortage of personnel or equipment - length of detention in issue essentially attributable to exceptional complexity of case and conduct of applicant. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four).   © 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