CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juin 1992

.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 } .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. June 1992 Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain - 12747/87 Judgment 26.6.1992 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law Criminal proceedings before the Tribunal de Corts of the Principality of Andorra and imprisonment in France after convictions by that court: no 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.   THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE CASE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ARTICLE 6 Applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial before the Tribunal de Corts and regarded France and Spain as responsible at international level for the conduct of the Andorran authorities. Preliminary objections raised by the respondent Governments, as previously before the Commission, which had declared the application admissible but then declined jurisdiction. A.   Objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione loci Court agreed in substance with the Governments' arguments and the Commission's opinion that the Convention was not applicable on the territory of Andorra, notwithstanding its ratification by France and Spain.   It also took into consideration various circumstances: the Principality was not a member of the Council of Europe, which prevented it being a party to the Convention in its own right, and appeared never to have taken any steps to seek admission as an "associate member" of the organisation; territory of Andorra was not an area common to France and Spain or a Franco-Spanish condominium; the Principality's relations with France and Spain did not follow the normal pattern of relations between sovereign States and did not take the form of international agreements, even though the development of the Andorran institutions might according to the French Co-Prince, allow Andorra to "join the international community". Conclusion : objection upheld (unanimously). B.   Objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione personae Term "jurisdiction": not limited to the national territory of the Contracting States, whose responsibility could be involved because of acts of their authorities producing effects outside their own territory. Judges from France and Spain sat as members of the Andorran courts, but did not do so in their capacity as French or Spanish judges - those courts, in particular the Tribunal de Corts , exercised their functions in an autonomous manner - their judgments not subject to supervision by the authorities of France or Spain. Nothing in the case-file to suggest that those authorities had attempted to interfere with the applicants' trial. Secondment of judges, or their placing at the disposal of foreign countries, also practised between member States of the Council of Europe. Conclusion : objection upheld (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION Applicants considered their detention in France unlawful for want of a legal basis, and contrary to French ordre public in the absence of any control by the French authorities. A.   Preliminary objection of the French Government (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Objection of inadmissibility previously raised before the Commission, which asked the Court not to examine it - consistent case-law to the contrary. Conclusion : Court had jurisdiction to examine the objection (unanimously). Bringing criminal proceedings, with themselves as civil parties, against the officials or judges responsible for their detention, or bringing an action for a flagrantly unlawful act committed by them: aim of remedies was to obtain compensation for damage caused by deprivation of liberty and to impose sanctions on public officials - might have indirect effect of putting an end to detention, but had not hitherto had such a result where the detention originated in an Andorran court decision, as the French courts did not regard themselves as having jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of such decisions. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint 1.   Legal basis of the detention in issue Review of the observance of Andorran legal procedures, and more generally of the lawfulness of the applicants' deprivation of liberty in terms of the law of the Principality: Court had no jurisdiction. Compliance with French law: Court considered this established. Franco-Andorran custom had sufficient stability and legal force to serve as a basis for the detention in issue, notwithstanding the particular status of the Principality in international law. 2.   Necessity of a control by the French courts of the conviction in issue Tribunal de Corts : considered by the Court in this case as the "competent court" referred to in Article 5 § 1 (a).   As the Convention did not require Contracting Parties to impose its standards on third States or territories, France was not obliged to verify whether the proceedings which resulted in the applicants' conviction were compatible with all the requirements of Article 6.   To require such a review would also thwart the current trend, in principle in the interests of those concerned, to strengthening international co-operation in the administration of justice.   Contracting States obliged, however, to refuse their co-operation if it emerged that the conviction was the result of a flagrant denial of justice. Court took note of the declaration by the French Government that France could and would refuse its customary co-operation if it was a question of enforcing on its territory an Andorran judgment which was manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein. Confirmation of this assurance in the decisions of French courts. Not shown that France was required to refuse its co-operation in enforcing the sentences in issue. Conclusion : no violation (twelve votes to eleven).   © 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