Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14
January 2000
Yahiaoui v. France - 30962/96
Judgment 20.1.2000 [Section III]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Appeals on points of law dismissed due to absence of written pleadings: non-exhaustion
Facts: The applicant, Amar Yahiaoui, a Tunisian national, is currently serving a prison sentence in France for killing his wife. In June 1992 in the course of the criminal investigation proceedings introduced against him on a charge of murder, an investigating judge of the Marseilles Tribunal de Grande Instance charged him and placed him in detention on remand. From September 1992 onwards the applicant filed eight applications for release which were all rejected by the investigating judge and the Indictments Chamber of the Aïx-en-Provence Court of Appeal. He also filed another eighteen applications which were also rejected by the investigating judge; he did not appeal against these decisions. In addition, he lodged two appeals on points of law against two decisions upholding the rejection of his applications for release. These appeals were also dismissed in the decisions of 16 May 1995 and 9 January 1996 on the ground that he had not filed statements of the grounds of appeal. In March 1996 he made a new application directly to the Indictments Chamber which was rejected. He did not lodge an appeal on points of law against that decision. In May 1997 he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment by the Assize Court of the département of Bouches du Rhône. On 30 May he lodged an appeal on points of law which was rejected on 18 September 1996.
Law: Article 5 § 3 - The Government’s objection on a preliminary issue: The applicant had lodged two appeals on points of law against the decisions of the Indictments Chamber, but had not filed further pleadings to support these appeals, which the Court of Cassation had dismissed for lack of pursuit. Moreover, he had not made any observations on this point. The complaint that an applicant intended to bring before the Court should have first been brought before the appropriate domestic courts. The Court of Cassation was in a position to make a finding, on the basis of an examination of the proceedings, as to whether or not those authorised to exercise judicial power had respected the reasonable time-limit in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 § 3. The applicant had therefore not given the French courts the opportunity to avoid or redress the violations allegedly committed by the French authorities, as required by Article 35 § 1.
Conclusion: non-exhaustion (unanimous).
© 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