CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 102 November 2007 Lelièvre v. Belgium - 11287/03 Judgment 8.11.2007 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Failure by the Belgian judicial authorities to give any serious consideration to the question of alternatives to preventive detention: violation   Facts   : The applicant, an accomplice in the “Dutroux   case”, was arrested and charged in August 1996 with kidnapping and imprisoning a minor. He was placed in pre-trial detention and was subsequently also charged, among other things, with kidnapping six people, five of whom were minors and four of whom had died as a result, and with imprisoning three of them. The investigating authorities examined the matter of the applicant’s continued detention on a monthly basis. From March 2001 onwards the applicant made several applications to be released, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The trial opened at the beginning of March 2004. Four days of hearings were held every week and 459 witnesses were summoned. On 22 June 2004 the Assize Court sentenced the applicant to 25   years’ imprisonment, for committing or aiding and abetting the following offences: false imprisonment with aggravating circumstances and abduction of female juveniles, trafficking ecstasy pills, conspiring to abduct female juveniles and involvement in various forms of trafficking (including drugs and human beings). Law : The applicant’s continued detention had been justified by the continuing existence of plausible reasons for suspecting him of having committed criminal offences. The other reasons given for refusing to release the applicant, including the risk that he would abscond and avoid appearing for trial, had remained throughout the proceedings, even though their relevance had varied considerably in intensity over time. Concerning the obligation of the authorities to consider alternatives to his continued pre-trial detention, the applicant had requested that such a possibility be given serious consideration and suggested alternative solutions (electronic surveillance and obligation to report to a police station several times a day), or at least suggested means of reducing the risk of his absconding. The Belgian courts had generally failed to respond to his proposals, however, and none had envisaged alternatives to pre-trial detention of its own motion. A judgment delivered in August 2003 had replied, without further explanation, that no alternative measure could effectively make the applicant less dangerous. However, the proposals the applicant had made seemed to indicate willingness to provide guarantees that he would appear in court. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had the power to consider alternatives to pre-trial detention of their own motion and, more importantly, Belgian law left them considerable leeway to decide what type of alternative measure to apply, depending on the circumstances of the case. An applicant could not be blamed, therefore, for not specifying in advance which alternative solution he preferred. The question of alternative measures to the applicant’s pre-trial detention had thus never been seriously examined by the judicial authorities. Yet the applicant had already been detained for almost five years when he first applied for his release, relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. In short, the authorities had not produced “relevant and sufficient” justification for keeping the applicant in detention for seven years, ten months and eight days. Lastly, as to whether the proceedings had been conducted with “special diligence”, almost two years had passed between the transmission of the investigation file and the opening of the trial. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41 – 6,000   EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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