Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19760521-656574
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 23:01:24+00:00
Document Index: 48058585

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 12", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 12", "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 25"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6565/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-05-21;6565.74 Analyses : (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 11-1) FONDER ET S'AFFILIER A DES SYNDICATS, (Art. 11-1) INTERET DES MEMBRESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6565/74 X . v/UNITED KINGDOM X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 21 May 1976 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 21 mai 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 5, paregraphe 1(t) of the Convention : Examination of the relevant provisions of an extradition treaty in order to determine whether the detention with a view to extradition is "tawful".
Article 25 of the Convention : Victim of a violation . The Commission need not examine an argument which does not correspond to the facts of the case . Article 5, paragraphe 1(t) de la Convention : Examen des dispositions pertinentes du traitÃ© d'extradition pour Ã©tablir si une dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition est "rÃ©guliPre" . Article 25 de la Convention : Victime d'une violation . La Commission n'a pas Ã examiner un argument fondÃ© sur une hypothÃ©se qui ne correspond pas aux faits de la cause .
(franÃ§eis : voir p. 55)
The epplicant, a German citizen, was arrested in the United Kingdom on 17 May 1973 as he was suspected of various crimes concerning fraud in Western Germany . Extradition to Germany was granted on 6 July 1973 but not effectuated and the applicant remained in detention . Meanwhile the German authorities suspected in addition that the applicant had committed other frauds . They withdrew the extradition request in order to substitute another one. Thus on the basis of a warrant issued by the Munich District Court in August 1973, the German authorities initiated new extradition proceedings in London . With the prior approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court issued a new "warrant of apprehension"; notice of which was given to the applicant on 23 October 1973, at the place where he was still detained. On 2 November the Magistrates Court made a new extradition order in favour of the Federal Republic of Germany . On 30 November, the applicant applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis of Article 12 of the Anglo-German Extradition Treaty, which provides that if sufficient evidence for the extradition is not produced within two months of date of apprehension of the fugitive he must be set at liberty .
_ 53 -
According to the applicant, the word "apprehension" applies to his arrest on 17 May 1973 . Moreover, the necessary evidence for the second extradition request was furnished by the German authorities more than two months after this date ; thenceforth his detention was illegal. The Divisional Court stated that the word "apprehension" epplies to an arrest following a correctly submined request for extradition . As it concerned a person already under detention, this "apprehension" was perdormed by the serving of the warrant ; in the applicant's case on the 23 October 1973. This interpretation is in /ine with a recent decision of the House of Lords .
The applicent alleges that he has been detained unlawfully in violation of Article 5 of the Convention . He submits that the interpretation given by the British courts to the word "apprehension" would permit the detention of a person for an unlimited period should the State requesting extradition successively modify its requests .
THE LAW ( Extract ) The applicant has [firsl7 complained that his detention, with a view to his extradition to the Federal Republic of Germany, was not in conformity with A rt icle 5 of the Convention . It is true that A rt . 5 111 secures to everyone the right to liberty and security of his person, and that according to this provision no one shall be deprived of his libe rty save in ce rtain cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law . The lawful arrest or detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to, inter alia, extradition is expressly provided for in sub-para . (f) of A rt . 5(11 . In the present case, the applicant was detained in view to his extradition to Germany as from 17 May 1973 . He does not deny that detention in view of extradition is, as such, covered by the provision of Art . 5 111 (f) . The only question before the Commission is, theretore, whether in the present case the applicant's detention in view of extradition was lawful within the meaning of Art . 5 111 (f) . In this respect the applicant has invoked A rt . 12 of the Anglo - German extradition treaty which provides for the release of a person detained in view of his extradition, if no sufficient evidence is produced against him within a period of two months from his "apprehension" . The applicant opposes the interpretation given to the term "apprehension" by the cou rts in England, according to which "apprehension" means a warrant following receipt of the request for extradition from the other Government concerned . In the applicant's opinion "apprehension" can only mean his actual apprehension by the original arrest . However, even if one follows his applicant's interpretation of the treaty, it doe s not appear from the facts of the present case as submitted by the applicant himself that his detention was in conflict with the treaty provisions . According to the applicant's own submissions the competent cou rt issued the warrant for his surrender on 6 July 1973, that is well before the expiration of a two month period from his arrest on 17 May 1973 . The German Government had therefore apparently submitted the evidence within the period envisaged by the treaty . It follows that, the condition required for the lawfulness of the detention under the treaty having thus been met, the detention must also be considered as lawful within the meaning of A rt . 5 (1) (f) of the Convention .
-ry} -
This finding is not affected by the circumstance that the Federal Republic's first extradition request was later replaced by a new, more extensive one . In this respect, the Commission finds nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the decisions rendered by the competent courts in England on this matter . As regards the applicant's argument about the possibility of an indefinite series of two month periods of detention, the accusations each time being dropped and replaced by new ones, the Commission states that this assumption does not correspond to the facts in the present case . The argument put forward by the applicant is therefore merely hypothetical and the Commission is therefore not called upon to express an opinion on this question (cf . Art . 25 of the Convention) . It follows that the applicant's complaint under Art . 5 is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents Le requÃ©rant, citoyen allemand, a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© au Royaume-Uni le 17 mai 19 73 car il Ã©tait recherchÃ© comme soupÃ§onnÃ© de divers dÃ©tits d'escroquerie commis en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne. L 'extradition Ã la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rate a Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e le 6 juiliet 1973 mais non exÃ©cutÃ©e et le requÃ©rant demeura dÃ©tenu . Entretemps, en effet, les autoritÃ©s allemandes avaient acquis le soupÃ§on que le requÃ©rant avait commis encore d'autres escroqueries . Elles retirÃ©rent ators la demande d'extradition en vue de la remplacer par une autre . Sur la base d'un mandat dÃ©livrÃ© par le tribunal de Munich en ao0t 1973, les autoritÃ©s allemandes firent parvenir Ã Londres une nouvelle demande d'extradition.
Avec l'accord du SecrÃ©taire d'Etat, le tribunal de Bow Street dÃ©cerna un nouveau mandat d'arrÃ©t (apprehension), qui fut notifiÃ© au requÃ©rant, toujours dÃ©tenu, le 23 octobre 1973, Le 2 novembre, le tribunal rendit une nouvelle dÃ©cision d'extradition Ã la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Le 20 novembre, le requÃ©rant a requis une ordonnance d'habeas corpus et a demandÃ© sa mise en libertÃ©, se fondant sur l'article 12 du traitÃ© d'extradition germanobritannique, qui stipule que si des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve suffisants pour justifier l'extradition n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© fournis dans les deux mois Ã compter de l'arrestation l apprehension), t'intÃ©ressÃ© doit Ãªtre remrs en tibertÃ©. Selon le requÃ©rant, le mot rr apprehension Â» s'applique Ã son arrestation le 17 mai 1973 . Or, les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve Ã l'appui de la deuxiÃ©me demande d'extradition ont Ã©tÃ© fournis par les autoritÃ©s allemandes plus de deux mois aprÃ©s ce tte date ; dÃ¨s lors, sa dÃ©tention Ã©tait illÃ©gale . L'instance d'appel a jugÃ© que le mot a apprehension Â» s'appliquait Ã© une arrestation A la suite d'une demande d'extradition en bonne et due forme . S'agissant d'une personne dÃ©ja dÃ©tenue, cette arrestation Ã©tait rÃ©alisÃ©e par la notification du mandat ; dans le cas du requÃ©rant, elle avait eu lieu le 23 octobre 1973. Cette interprÃ©tation est conforme Ã la jurisprudence rÃ©cente dÃ© la Chambre des Lords . Le requÃ©rant alfÃ©gue qu'il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu irrÃ©gutiÃ©rement, en violation de l'article 5 de la Convention . it soutient que l'interprÃ©tation donnÃ©e par les tribunaux britanniques au mot Â« apprehension u permettrait de dÃ©tenir une personne pendant une durÃ©e illimitÃ©e si l'Etat requÃ©rant d'extradition modifie successivement ses demandes .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint Cen premier lieu? que sa dÃ©tention en vue de son extradition Ã la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne n'est pas conforme Ã l'article 5 de la Convention . Il est vrai que l'article 5, Â§ 1, garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ¹retÃ© et que, selon cette disposition, nul ne peut Ã©tre privÃ© de sa libertÃ© sauf dans des cas dÃ©terminÃ©s et selon les voies lÃ©gales . L'arrestation et la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ©res d'une personne contre laquelle notamment une procÃ©dure d'extradition est en cours sont expressÃ©ment prÃ©vues Ã l'article 5, Â§ 1 Ifl .
En l'espÃ©ce, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu Ã partir du 17 mai 1973 en vue de son extradition Ã l'Allemagne . Il ne conteste pas qu'une dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition soit conforme, en elle-mÃªme, Ã l'article 5, Â§ 1 Ifl . La seule question que la Commission doit examiner ici est donc celle de savoir si la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant en vue de son extradition Ã©tait rÃ©guliÃ©re, au sens de l'article 5, Â§ 1 (f) . Le requÃ©rant, sur ce point, invoque l'article 12 du traitÃ© d'extradition germano-britannique, qui prÃ©voit qu'une personne dÃ©tenue en vue de son extradition doit Ã©tre mise en libertÃ© si des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve suffisants ne sont pas fournis contre elle dans un dÃ©lai de deux mois Ã compter de son arrestation la apprehension Â») . Le requÃ©rant conteste l'interprÃ©tation du terme a apprehension Â» donnÃ©e par les tribunaux anglais, interprÃ©tation selon laquelle rt apprehension Â» signifie un mandat dÃ©cernÃ© aprÃ¨s rÃ©ception d'une demande d'extradition provenant de l'autre Gouvernement . De l'avis du requÃ©rant, Â« apprehension Â» ne peut signifier que sa privation de libertÃ© effective par la premiÃ©re arrestation .
Toutefois, mÃ©me si l'on suit l'interprÃ©tation du traitÃ© donnÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, il ne ressort pas des faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s par le requÃ©rant lui-mÃ¨me, que sa dÃ©tention ait Ã©tÃ© contraire aux dispositions du traitÃ© . Selon l'exposÃ© du requÃ©rant, le tribunal compÃ©tent a rendu le 6 juillet 1973 une ordonnance autorisant son extradition, c'est-Ã -dire bien avant l'expiration du dÃ©lai de deux mois Ã compter du 17 mai 1973, date de son arrestation . Le Gouvernement allemand avait donc, Ã n'en pas douter, soumis les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve dans le dÃ©lai prÃ©vu par le traitÃ© . Il s'ensuit que les conditions rendant la dÃ©tention lÃ©gale au regard du traitÃ© ayant Ã©tÃ© remplies, la dÃ©tention doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme rÃ©guliÃ©re, au sens de l'article 5, Â§ 1 (f) de la Convention . Cette constatation n'est nullement infirmÃ©e par le fait que la premiÃ©re demande d'extradition formulÃ©e par la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale a Ã©tÃ© ultÃ©rieurement remplacÃ©e par une autre, plus Ã©tendue . La Commission considÃ©re, Ã cet Ã©gard, que les dÃ©cisions rendues en cette affaire par les tribunaux anglais n'ont rien de dÃ©raisonnable ni d'arbitraire . Quant Ã l'argument que le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend tirer d'une possibilitÃ© de dÃ©tenir une personne durant un nombre illimitÃ© de pÃ©riodes de deux mois, les accusations Ã©tant chaque fois abandonnÃ©es et remplacÃ©es par d'autres, la Commission constate qu'une telle hypothÃ©se ne correspond nullement aux faits de la prÃ©sente affaire . L'argument ainsi avancÃ© par le requÃ©rant relÃ©ve donc de l'ordre des spÃ©culations et la Commission n'est donc pas appelÃ©e Ã s'exprimer Ã son sujet (cf . l'article 25 de la Convention) .
-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 21/05/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page