Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
March 1995
Quinn v. France - 18580/91
Judgment 22.3.1995
Article 5
Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Lawful arrest or detention
Article 5-1-f
Extradition
Lawfulness and length of detention prior to and during extradition proceedings: 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 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Continuation of detention after a decision requiring detainee's immediate release
Some delay in executing a decision is understandable, but in instant case applicant had remained in detention for eleven hours without any move being made to commence execution of decision.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
B.Detention with a view to extradition
Detention with a view to extradition in principle justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) and no abuse of procedure - however, applicant's detention with a view to extradition unusually long - deprivation of liberty under that sub-paragraph justified only for as long as extradition proceedings are being conducted - in instant case at different stages of the proceedings delays of sufficient length to render total duration excessive - applicant's surrender postponed pursuant to Article 19 of the European Convention on Extradition (criminal proceedings conducted in France at the same time).
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Period to be taken into consideration
Article 5 § 3 not applicable to detention pending extradition -only applicant's detention on remand in connection with the domestic criminal proceedings could be taken into account.
Starting-point: date of applicant's arrest.
End: date of decision ordering his release.
Total: one year.
B.Reasonableness
Length not excessive - no negligence on the part of national authorities.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION
In view of the finding that there had been no abuse of procedure, not necessary to re-examine the same facts.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage: claim allowed in part.
B.Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (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