Scott v. Spain

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.

December 1996

Scott v. Spain - 21335/93

Judgment 18.12.1996

Article 5

Article 5-1

Lawful arrest or detention

Lawfulness of pre-trial detention of person also sought for extradition: no violation

Article 5-3

Length of pre-trial detention

Length of pre-trial detention: 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.Preliminary observations

Rape investigation provided at all times justification for applicant's ongoing detention - extradition authorities ordered detention following request for extradition but prolonged it beyond date when provisional release was granted in rape case - Court will consider legal basis of detention "autonomously" and approach whole detention as falling within Article 5 § 1 (c).

B.The lawfulness of the applicant's continued detention

Detention between provisional release in rape case (6 March 1992) and new detention in rape case (25 August 1993) followed legal procedure - other issues of lawfulness to be treated under Article 5 § 3.

New detention order in rape case (25 August 1993) also followed legal procedure - in view of available evidence against applicant, order complied with substantive domestic legislation and was not arbitrary.

Conclusion: no violation (eight votes to one).

II.ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)

Applicant filed requests for release only with extradition authorities - in circumstances, reasonable to consider that these authorities had last say in matters relating to detention, no purpose served by applying to criminal authorities.

Conclusion: dismissal (unanimously).

B.Merits of the complaint

1.Period to be taken into consideration: from arrest to acquittal (four years and sixteen days).

2.Grounds for continued detention: evident and significant risk of applicant's absconding persisted throughout entire period of detention.

3.Conduct of the proceedings: case not particularly complex - length of proceedings not attributable to applicant - duty of "special diligence" not observed.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

Damage: extradition granted on condition that time spent in prison pending extradition be deducted from final sentence - applicant sentenced to life imprisonment in United Kingdom - finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.

Costs and expenses: excessive.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicant (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