CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     736 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Naudo v. France (application no. 35469/06 ) and Maloum v. France (no. 35471/06 )   EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION IN ARMOURED VAN HOLD-UP CASE   Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     The applicants made no claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicants are two French nationals, Mr Jean-Jacques Naudo and Mr Karim Maloum, who were born respectively in 1963 and 1959 and are currently serving a prison sentence in France. They were arrested on 27 December 2000 on suspicion of participating the day before in the hold-up of a Brink’s armoured van on the public highway in Gentilly, near Paris. The robbers had taken over 6.3 million euros. The suspects were traced, thanks to indications by a witness, with a huge stock of weapons and explosives and a significant sum in cash. A judicial investigation was opened against them on 29 December 2000 and they were remanded in custody for one year, on the grounds, among others, that the obligations of judicial supervision appeared insufficient and that pre-trial detention was the only way to preserve evidence, prevent collusion with accomplices and ensure they remained amenable to justice. On several occasions their detention was extended and their applications for release were dismissed on similar grounds until they were finally convicted.   On 1 April 2005, after a judicial investigation that had lasted nearly four years (concerning several co-accused and involving 26 requests for evidence on commission, both in France and abroad, over 85 expert’s reports and 43 records of interview or confrontation), the Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal committed the applicants to stand trial before the Val-de-Marne Assize Court. On 29 November 2005 the Court of Cassation, ruling on an application from the public prosecutor, relocated the case to the Paris Assize Court on security grounds. In a final judgment of 22 December 2006 that court sentenced the applicants to 13 years’ imprisonment.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   5 § 3, the applicants complained that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 August 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,   Decision of the Court   A pre-trial detention period of six years (from the applicants’ arrest on 27 December 2000 to their conviction on 22 December 2006) had to be justified by particularly strong arguments.   The reasons given by the French courts for holding Mr Naudo and Mr Maloum in custody (in particular the risk of absconding) were admittedly relevant and sufficient, as the case concerned organised crime and large-scale robbery with international ramifications, but the proceedings were excessively long.   The Court found that, whilst it was well aware that the requisite promptness in such a case must not hinder the efforts of judges and prosecutors to perform their duties with due care, the length of time at issue was unjustified. The delays (which did not concern the judicial investigation itself) could not be justified simply by the preparation for the trial, or by the relocation of the trial on security grounds from the Assize Court originally hearing the case, or by the backlog of cases at the new Assize Court.   The Court held unanimously that the applicants’ detention, by its excessive duration, had thus entailed a violation of Article 5   § 3.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.