Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
March 1997
Muller v. France - 21802/93
Judgment 17.3.1997
Article 5
Article 5-3
Length of pre-trial detention
Reasonableness of pre-trial detention
Length of detention pending trial: 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: when applicant taken into police custody.
End: judgment of the Assize Court.
Total: nearly four years.
B.Reasonableness of length of detention
Complexity of case: amalgamation of proceedings conducted in three different jurisdictions simultaneously - however, as soon as he was arrested, applicant had admitted the offences of which he was accused.
Risk of collusion: must have disappeared by the time criminal investigation was closed.
Risk of applicant's absconding: its reality not apparent from decisions not to release applicant - could not be gauged solely on basis of the severity of sentence faced.
Risk of applicant's reoffending: reference to a person's antecedents cannot suffice to justify refusing release.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage
Pecuniary damage: length of detention pending trial had been deducted from sentence served.
Non-pecuniary damage: present judgment constituted sufficient compensation.
B.Costs and expenses
Claim allowed in part.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay a 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