CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 septembre 1992

.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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; 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. September 1992 Kolompar v. Belgium - 11613/85 Judgment 24.9.1992 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-4 Take proceedings Lawfulness and length of detention with a view to extradition: no violations [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 (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Government could not put to the Court arguments inconsistent with their position before national court (in this instance based on latter's lack of jurisdiction). Conclusion : dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint 1.   Lawfulness of detention as such Detention in respect of offences committed in Belgium: satisfied requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article 5 § 1. Detention with a view to extradition: in principle justified under sub-paragraph (f), but necessary to determine whether it remained compatible with that provision to the end. 2.   Length of contested detention Continuation of detention after completion of extradition proceedings properly so-called: resulted from successive applications for stay of execution of extradition decision or for release, as well as time necessary to verify an alibi - applicant's conduct gave rise to delays for which respondent State could not be held responsible. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION Fact that no breach of paragraph 1 has been found does not dispense Court from carrying out review of compliance with paragraph 4, but the problem raised by length of the detention in issue was in this instance the same as that dealt with by the Court in relation to paragraph 1. 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