CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 décembre 1996

.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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; 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. December 1996 Scott v. Spain - 21335/93 Judgment 18.12.1996 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Lawfulness of pre-trial detention of person also sought for extradition: no violation Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Length of pre-trial detention: 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 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Preliminary observations Rape investigation provided at all times justification for applicant's ongoing detention - extradition authorities ordered detention following request for extradition but prolonged it beyond date when provisional release was granted in rape case - Court will consider legal basis of detention "autonomously" and approach whole detention as falling within Article   5   §   1   (c). B.   The lawfulness of the applicant's continued detention Detention between provisional release in rape case (6 March 1992) and new detention in rape case (25 August 1993) followed legal procedure - other issues of lawfulness to be treated under Article   5   §   3. New detention order in rape case (25 August 1993) also followed legal procedure - in view of available evidence against applicant, order complied with substantive domestic legislation and was not arbitrary. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Applicant filed requests for release only with extradition authorities - in circumstances, reasonable to consider that these authorities had last say in matters relating to detention, no purpose served by applying to criminal authorities. Conclusion : dismissal (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint 1.   Period to be taken into consideration: from arrest to acquittal (four years and sixteen days). 2.   Grounds for continued detention: evident and significant risk of applicant's absconding persisted throughout entire period of detention. 3.   Conduct of the proceedings: case not particularly complex - length of proceedings not attributable to applicant - duty of "special diligence" not observed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Damage: extradition granted on condition that time spent in prison pending extradition be deducted from final sentence - applicant sentenced to life imprisonment in United Kingdom - finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction. Costs and expenses: excessive. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a 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