CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 1991

.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 } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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-December 1991 Kemmache v. France (no. 1 and no. 2) - 12325/86 and 14992/89 Judgment 27.11.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention Length of pre-trial detentions: 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.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Periods to be taken into consideration Applicant underwent four periods of detention on remand – only first two (total of two years, ten months and ten days) to be taken into consideration in present case, the others being subsequent to date of adoption of Commission's report on alleged violation of Article 5 §   3 and the subject of new applications. B.   Reasonableness of the length of the two periods of detention 1.   First detention Nature of offences to be investigated and requirements of investigation could justify the detention in question. 2.   Second detention Refusal to release applicant based on four grounds: (a)   Seriousness of the offences and severity of the sentence risked: existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt constitute relevant factors, but cannot alone justify such a long period of pre-trial detention. (b)   Requirements of public order: conditions laid down in Court's case-law not satisfied in this instance because some of the national courts in question assessed need to continue deprivation of liberty from purely abstract point of view, taking into consideration only the gravity of the offences, and others confined themselves to noting the effects of those offences. (c)   Risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses and the co-accused: disappeared after the investigation into the main offence had been concluded by investigating judge. (d)   Risk of applicant's absconding: courts in question entitled to believe that there was a risk of the applicant's evading trial, but no longer relied on such a risk after specified date – at least subsequent to that date, detention was no longer justified on this account. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting point: date on which applicant was charged. End: proceedings still pending as Court of Cassation has not yet ruled on applicant's appeal. Total: more than eight and a half years. B.   Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings 1.   Investigation Length not excessive in this instance. 2.   Trial (a)   Complexity of the case: question not raised in proceedings before the European Court. (b)   Applicant's conduct: two prolongations of the proceedings for which judicial authorities cannot be held responsible, the applicant having agreed to one of them, and brought about the other by failing to report to the prison the day before the trial, although his state of health did not prevent him from appearing before the Assize Court. (c)   Conduct of the judicial authorities: subornation proceedings ( poursuites correctionnelles ) had some effect on course of the main proceedings; argument that a separation of the applicant's case from that of his co-accused in order for him to be tried sooner could not be envisaged: unconvincing. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Question not ready for decision as main proceedings not yet concluded. Conclusion : question reserved (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