Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840313-929981
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 18:53:13+00:00
Document Index: 127581181

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'arrêt ', "l'article 26", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 26"]

P. c. SUISSE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche P. c. SUISSE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9299/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-13;9299.81 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : P.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQIIGTE NÂ° 9299/8 1 P . v/SWITZERLAN D P . c/SUISS E
DECISION of 13 March 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 13 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 26 of the Convention : Given the nature of the complaints raised, the six months' period runs not from the date of notification of the operative part of a decision of the Swiss Federal Court, but from the subsequent notification of the full text of the judgment . Article 26 de la Convention : Vu la nature des griefs soulevÃ©s, dÃ©lai de six mois comptÃ© non Ã partir de la notification du seul dispositif d'un arrÃªt du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse mais de la notification ultÃ©rieure de son texte complet.
(English : see p . 22)
Le requÃ©rantâ¢ a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã deux ans et demi de rÃ©clusion pour diverses infractions, peine rÃ©duite ultÃ©rieurement Ã un an et demi. La procÃ©dure se prolongea Ã la suite de nouveaux recours . Dans un recours de droit public qu'il avait formÃ© en mars 1980, le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait plaint de la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure dirigÃ©e contre lui . Ce recours fut rejetÃ© le 26 juin 1980 . le dispositif de l'arrÃªt Ã©tant notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant le 1Â° juillet 1980 et le teste complet de l'arrÃªt le 20 aoGt 1981 . Dans sa requÃ©te, introduite devant la Commission le 13 fÃ©vrier 1981, le requÃ©rant reprend son grief relatif Ã la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure.
Le requfrani Asit reprÃ©sernÃ© devant la Commission par Mâ¢ GÃ©nld Benoit, avocat Ã Genive .
Quant au dÃ©lai de six moi s Le Gouvernement a soutenu que si l'arrÃ¨t du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral du 26 juin 1980 est considÃ©rÃ©, en l'espÃ¨ce, comme la dÃ©cison interne dÃ©finitive au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention, la requÃ¨te doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour non respect du dÃ©lai de six mois . En effet, le dispositif de l'arrÃªt du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant le Iâjuillet 1980 . Or le requÃ©rant n'a introduit sa requÃ©te Ã la Commission que le 13 fÃ©vrier 1981, soit plus de six mois plus tard . Le requÃ©rant soutient quant Ã lui que la date Ã prendre en considÃ©ration pour le calcul du dÃ©lai de six mois est la date Ã laquelle il a reÃ§u notification de l'arrÃªt motivÃ© du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, soit le 20 ao0t 1981 . Sa requÃªte aurait donc bien Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e dans le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . En l'occurrence la Commission attache une importance particuliÃ¨re au fait que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral Ã©tait saisi d'un grief relevant de l'application d'une disposition de la Convention que le requÃ©rant avait expressÃ©ment invoquÃ©e Ã l'appui de son pourvoi . Elle constate que la simple notification du dispositif de l'arrÃªt rejetant son recours ne permettait pas au requÃ©rant d'apprÃ©cier si un recours ultÃ©rieur Ã la Commission pouvait prÃ©senter des chances de succÃ¨s ni de motiver, fOt-ce succinctement, un tel recours . Les griefs soulevÃ©s devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral impliquaient en outre une apprÃ©ciation complexe portant sur la question de savoir si les dispositions du droit suisse appliquÃ©es en l'espÃ¨ce satisfaisaient aux garanties dÃ©coulant de l'article 6, par . I, de la Convention . La Commission considÃ©re donc qu'en l'espÃ¨ce c'est bien la date Ã laquelle le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u l'arrÃªt motivÃ© du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral qui est peninente pour le calcul du dÃ©lai de six mois . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ¨te a Ã© tÃ© introduite dans le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 de la Convention .
Summary of the relevant facts 7he appticantâ¢ was convicted and sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, which sentence was reduced subsequently to a year and a half. Proceedings were prolonged by furrher appeals . Jn a public law appeal which the applicant had lodged in March 1980, the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings against him. This appeal was dismissed on 26 June 1980, the operative parr of the decision being notified to the applicant on 1 July 1980, followed by the full test of the judgment on 20 August /980. !n his application lodged with the Commission on 13 February 1981, the applicant raises his complaint conceming the length of proceedings.
(1RANSU 7 ION) THE LAW (Extract ) ............... The Govemment has argued that, if the Federal Court's judgment of 26 Jun e 1980 is regarded as the final domestic judgment within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention, the application must be rejected for failing to respect the sixmonth period . In fact, the operative provisions of the Federal Court's judgment were served on the applicant on I July 1980, but he did not lodge his application with the Commission until 13 February 1981, i .e . more than six months later . The applicant himself argues that the six-month period must be counted from the date on which he received the full text, giving reasons, of the Federal Court's judgment, i .e . 20 August 1981 . On this basis, his application would have been lodged within the six-month period specified in Article 26 of the Convention . In this instance, the Commission attaches special importance to the fact that the Federal Court was considering a complaint concerning application of a provision of the Convention which the applicant had expressly cited in support of his appeal . It finds that the serving merely of the operative provisions of the decision rejecting his appeal did not enable him to decide whether an application to the Commission was likely to succeed or to give reasons, even briefly, for such an application . Furthermore, the complaints raised in the Federal Court also called for a difficult decision as to whether the provisions of Swiss law applied in this case were consistent with the guarantees provided by Article 6, par . I, of the Convention .
â¢ The appGcant was represented before the Commission by Mr Gfrald Benoit, barrister in Geneva .
The Commission thus considers, in this case, that the six-month period must indeed be counted from the date on which the applicant received the full text, giving reasons, of the Federal Court's judgment . This means that the application was lodged within the six months specified in Anicle 26 of the Convention .
- 23 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 13/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page