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 } .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. November-December 1991 Clooth v. Belgium - 12718/87 Judgment 12.12.1991 Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of detention on remand: 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.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: applicant's arrest. End: decision of indictments division confirming order of chambre du conseil for applicant's release. Total: three years, two months and four days. B.   Reasonableness of the length of detention Decisions to continue detention based essentially on three grounds: – Danger of repetition: may lead judicial authorities to place and leave suspect in detention on remand provided that danger is a plausible one and the measure appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case (in particular past history and personality of person concerned) – in this instance previous convictions not comparable in nature or degree of seriousness to charges preferred in the contested proceedings – ground did not in itself justify continuation of the detention after the communication of an expert's report referring to necessity of psychiatric care for the applicant. – Needs of inquiry and risks of collusion: could justify, at least at the outset, keeping the applicant in prison, in view of his conduct and the complexity of the case; in the long term, these reasons were no longer sufficient, as the risks alleged diminish with the passing of time – needs of the inquiry, mostly invoked in a general and abstract fashion, were not sufficient in this instance to justify continuation of the detention – delays in the investigations – evidence does not show that applicant's release occurred after completion of specific investigative steps. – Danger of absconding: ground not relevant because relied on thirty-one months after applicant's arrest and no arguments were put forward to establish that fears were well-founded. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 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