CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; 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 1993 Navarra v. France - 13190/87 Judgment 23.11.1993 Article 5 Article 5-4 Order release Take proceedings Time taken to hear appeal from a decision rejecting an application for release: 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.] A.   Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Possibility of bringing action for compensation against the State under Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation - relevant provision circumscribed State's liability very narrowly -applicant had not claimed to be victim of a "denial of justice" or of "gross negligence" - right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention to be distinguished from right to receive compensation for such detention - Compensation Board had rejected applicant's claim as ill-founded - objection unfounded. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint Compliance with French law: relevant courts had given their decisions within the time-limits laid down by law - there had been one delay for which applicant had been responsible - forwarding of file to Court of Cassation and to Montpellier Indictment Division had taken some time. Protection against arbitrariness: a State which institutes two tier system must in principle accord to detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance - in order to determine whether requirement of a speedy decision has been complied with, necessary to effect overall assessment. Court entertained certain doubts about length of substantive examination of appeal of 25 March 1986 - however, applicant retained right to submit further applications for release at any time and did not do so until 20 March 1987. Conclusion : no violation (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