Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
November-December 1991
Clooth v. Belgium - 12718/87
Judgment 12.12.1991
Article 5
Article 5-3
Length of pre-trial detention
Length of detention on remand: 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 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: applicant's arrest.
End: decision of indictments division confirming order of chambre du conseil for applicant's release.
Total: three years, two months and four days.
B.Reasonableness of the length of detention
Decisions to continue detention based essentially on three grounds:
– Danger of repetition: may lead judicial authorities to place and leave suspect in detention on remand provided that danger is a plausible one and the measure appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case (in particular past history and personality of person concerned) – in this instance previous convictions not comparable in nature or degree of seriousness to charges preferred in the contested proceedings – ground did not in itself justify continuation of the detention after the communication of an expert's report referring to necessity of psychiatric care for the applicant.
– Needs of inquiry and risks of collusion: could justify, at least at the outset, keeping the applicant in prison, in view of his conduct and the complexity of the case; in the long term, these reasons were no longer sufficient, as the risks alleged diminish with the passing of time – needs of the inquiry, mostly invoked in a general and abstract fashion, were not sufficient in this instance to justify continuation of the detention – delays in the investigations – evidence does not show that applicant's release occurred after completion of specific investigative steps.
– Danger of absconding: ground not relevant because relied on thirty-one months after applicant's arrest and no arguments were put forward to establish that fears were well-founded.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
Question reserved (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy