Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
June 1991
Letellier v. France - 12369/86
Judgment 26.6.1991
Article 5
Article 5-3
Length of pre-trial detention
Release pending trial
Length of pre‑trial detention: violation
Article 5-4
Speediness of review
Length of examination of an application for release: 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.ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: date on which applicant was remanded in custody.
End: Assize Court judgment.
Result: less period of release subject to court supervision, two years and nine months.
B.Reasonableness of length of detention
National judicial authorities: responsible in the first place for ensuring that pre-trial detention does not exceed reasonable time and must examine all the facts arguing for or against existence of genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, departure from rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on applications for release.
Court: must give its decision essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by applicant in his appeals.
Persistence of suspicion: condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but, after certain lapse of time, no longer suffices – Court must then establish the grounds which led judicial authorities to take their decision and, where they are relevant and sufficient, ascertain whether the authorities in question have displayed special diligence.
In case under review, refusal to release applicant based on four grounds.
1.Risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses: may have existed initially, but diminished and indeed disappeared with passing of time – not invoked by courts after a certain date.
2.Danger of absconding: cannot be gauged solely on basis of severity of sentence risked – must be assessed with reference to number of other relevant factors which may confirm existence of such a danger or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial – indictments divisions did not give reasons why they considered it decisive.
3.Inadequacy of court supervision: where only remaining reason for continued detention is danger of accused's absconding, he must be released if he is in a position to provide adequate guarantees that he will appear for trial, for example by lodging a security – indictments divisions did not establish that this had not been the position in case under review.
4.Preservation of public order: by reason of their particular gravity and public reaction to them, certain offences may give rise to a social disturbance capable of justifying pre-trial detention, at least for a time – factor which might therefore, in exceptional circumstances, be taken into account for the purposes of the Convention, in any event in so far as domestic law recognises the notion of disturbance to public order caused by an offence – however, this ground can be regarded as relevant and sufficient provided only that it is based upon facts capable of showing that detainee's release would actually disturb public order – in addition detention continues to be legitimate only if public order remains actually threatened – indictments divisions assessed need to continue the deprivation of liberty from purely abstract point of view, taking into consideration only gravity of offence.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
Court had certain doubts about total length of examination of one of the applications for release – however, applicant retained right to submit a further application at any time and did indeed file other applications, which were dealt with in periods of from eight to twenty days.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage
Pecuniary damage: claim dismissed, pre-trial detention having been deducted in its entirety from sentence.
Non-pecuniary damage: judgment constitutes sufficient satisfaction.
B.Costs and expenses incurred before the Convention organs: reimbursed.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay the applicant specified sum for 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy