CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 février 1995

.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 } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; 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. February 1995 Allenet de Ribemont v. France - 15175/89 Judgment 10.2.1995 Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Person in police custody described as guilty by senior police officers at press conference with Minister of the Interior: 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 6 §   2 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities. Applicant's arrest and detention in police custody had formed part of a judicial investigation begun by an investigating judge and made him a person "charged with a criminal offence" - remarks of the senior police officers responsible for conducting inquiry directly linked with the judicial investigation - Article 6 §   2 applicable. B.   Compliance 1.   Reference to case at the press conference Article 6 §   2 does not prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress but requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected. 2.   Content of statements complained of Reference to applicant by high-ranking police officers, without qualification or reservation, as an accomplice to murder had been a declaration of guilt. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 6 §   1 OF THE CONVENTION Applicability not in dispute. A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: date of lodging of non-contentious claim with the Prime Minister. End: date of Court of Cassation's judgment dismissing applicant's appeal on points of law against judgment of Paris Court of Appeal. Result: approximately eleven years and eight months. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings To be determined in light of circumstances of case and with reference to criteria laid down in Court's case-law. 1.   Complexity of case Length not entirely justified by complexity. 2.   Conduct of applicant Had delayed proceedings to a certain extent - at all events approximately eight years would remain. 3.   Conduct of national authorities Several periods of inactivity imputable to the authorities, who had constantly blocked production of essential piece of evidence - main cause of slow progress of proceedings. Administrative courts had taken five years and eight months to rule that they had no jurisdiction - except in Court of Appeal, no action taken by judges in the ordinary courts to expedite proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: claims justified in part. Non-pecuniary prejudice: indisputable, especially on account of violation of Article 6 §   2. B.   Guarantee Court did not have jurisdiction to issue orders to a Contracting State - question of just satisfaction ready for decision. C.   Costs and expenses Claim allowed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums in respect of damage (eight votes to one) and costs and expenses (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