CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 août 1998

.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. August 1998 Soumare v. France - 23824/94 Judgment 24.8.1998 Article 5 Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Take proceedings Application to court for ruling on lawfulness of detention pursuant to order of criminal court for imprisonment in default under Article 388 of Customs Code: 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 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Closely linked to complaint on merits. Conclusion : objection joined to merits (unanimously). B.     Merits of complaint Respondent State relied on possibility of appeal to Court of Cassation – yet, in case before Court, Paris Court of Appeal, ruling on applicant’s application to have order for imprisonment in default discharged on ground that he was insolvent (Article 752 of Code of Criminal Procedure), had expressly relied on decision of Civil Division of Court of Cassation in which it had been held that ordinary courts had no jurisdiction in cases of imprisonment in default. Unresolved issue of French law – not for Court to determine it or to express view on appropriateness of domestic courts’ choice of policy as regards case-law – its task was confined to determining whether consequences of that choice were in conformity with Convention. Recapitulation of Court’s case-law: existence of a remedy had to be sufficiently certain, failing which it would lack accessibility and effectiveness required for purposes of Article 5 § 4 – case-law of Court of Cassation uncertain at material time – since, according to Government, Court of Appeal judges had not followed changes in case-law on that subject, it would have been inappropriate to require applicant and his officially assigned lawyer to regard an appeal to Court of Cassation as effective remedy.Effective enjoyment of right guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 had not been secured with sufficient degree of certainty at material time. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed after consideration of merits; violation (eight votes to one). II.     ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient satisfaction (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses: Claim dismissed (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