CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 novembre 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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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. November 1992 Brincat v. Italy - 13867/88 Judgment 26.11.1992 Article 5 Article 5-3 Brought promptly before judge or other officer Possible successive exercise of functions of investigation and prosecution by same public prosecutor in same 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.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of Convention outside scope of case as defined by Commission's decision on admissibility. II.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION Sole point in issue: objective impartiality of deputy public prosecutor - risk that this might arouse legitimate doubt if he was entitled to intervene later in proceedings as representative of prosecuting authority - no reason to depart from Court's case-law post-dating Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979 and laid down in Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990. Only objective appearances at time of decision on detention were material: deputy public prosecutor could intervene at later stage as representative of prosecution, so that his impartiality could arouse doubts, to be regarded as objectively justified - of no importance in this respect that he later turned out to lack territorial jurisdiction. Conditions required for judicial officer deciding on detention not fulfilled either by prosecutor with jurisdiction, who also did not hear applicant promptly. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: no causal link with violation found - claim for compensation dismissed. Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses Before national courts: travel expenses of one relative and part of lawyer's fees and costs reimbursed. Before Convention institutions: travel expenses reimbursed, but no compensation awarded for work done by applicant who chose to represent himself. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant (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