CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 décembre 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 } .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-December 1991 Toth v. Austria - 11894/85 Judgment 12.12.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Release pending trial Article 5-4 Procedural guarantees of review Length of detention on remand and appeal procedures for reviewing detention: 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 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken in consideration Starting-point: applicant's arrest. End: release following Court of Appeal's decision allowing Mr   Toth's application. Total: less period corresponding to a prison sentence, two years, one month, and two days. B.   Reasonableness of length of detention 1.   Justification of the detention Refusal to release applicant based on two grounds: – Risk of repetition of the offences: relevant courts took account of nature of earlier offences and number of sentences imposed as a result – they could reasonably fear that accused would commit new offences. – Danger of absconding: courts based their decisions on grounds which provided sufficient explanation as to why they considered it decisive. Conclusion : reasons put forward for dismissing applications for release both relevant and sufficient. 2.   Conduct of the proceedings Length of proceedings: would seem essentially not to be attributable to complexity of case, because offences of which applicant was accused were relatively commonplace and repetitive, or to applicant's conduct, because his appeals scarcely slowed down examination of the case. On the other hand, speed of investigation suffered considerably from transmission of the whole file to relevant court not only on occasion of each application for release and each appeal by Mr   Toth, but also on that of each request from investigating judge or public prosecutor for extension of the detention. Preferred to use of copies, such toing and froing could hardly be reconciled with right to liberty secured under Article 5 §   1 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant's complaint concerning non-adversarial nature of proceedings in Court of Appeal. A.   Proceedings concerning applications for release 1.   Government's preliminary objection Objection based on failure to comply with six-month time-limit provided for in Article 26 in fine of the Convention: unfounded in Court's view, in the light of its own case-law and all the evidence. Conclusion : dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Merits of the complaint Failure to summons and to hear accused and his lawyer, whereas member of prosecuting authority attended hearing and was able to reply to court's questions. Applicant did not therefore have opportunity to contest properly reasons invoked to justify continuation of detention. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). B.   Proceedings concerning extension of pre-trial detention Proceedings instituted by public prosecutor and confined to fixing maximum period of detention – appellate court does not itself decide on appropriateness and necessity of keeping accused in detention or releasing him – nor does it undertake review of lawfulness of detention. Conclusion : Article 5 §   4 not applicable (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: pre-trial detention deducted in entirety from sentence – claim dismissed. Non-pecuniary damage: judgment sufficient satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses Before national courts: partial reimbursement of expenses and fees of one of the lawyers. 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