Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840712-900980
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 11:10:59+00:00
Document Index: 77310570

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'arrêt ', "l'article 16", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 18", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 18", "l'article 18", "l'article 18", "l'article 5", "l'article 16", "l'article 20", "l'article 18", "l'article 5", "l'article 27"]

BOZANO c. SUISSE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BOZANO c. SUISSE
Type d'affaire : Decision (Partielle)Type 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 : 9009/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-07-12;9009.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLEParties : Demandeurs : BOZANODéfendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 9009/80
Lorenzo BOZANO v/SWITZERLAN D Lorenzo BOZANO c/SUISS E
DECISION of 12 July 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 juillet 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 5, paragraph 1(1) of the Convention :"Lawfu l"Lawfu in accordance with the domestic prorisions applicable in the courttry of arrest or deterttion . Unless arbitra ry , the interpretation of the supreme national authority is conclusive in this respect. Article 18 of the Convention : This Anicle may only be applied in connection with a provision of the Convention guaranteeing a right which is subject to restrictions . Article 18 of the Convention in connection with Article 5, paragraph 1(1) of the Convention : Even uhere the person concemed is held by the Siate involved as a result of that person's expulsion from a third State which had refused to extradite him, these Anicles are not viotated where detention with a view to extradition takes place in accordance with national case law and without abuse of powers.
Article 5, paragraphe 1, litt . 1), de la Convention : L'adjectif Â» rÃ©guliÃ¨resÂ» signifie : conforme aux dispositions lÃ©gales applicables dans l'Etat dont les autoritÃ©s ont procÃ©dÃ© Ã l'arrestation ou Ã la dÃ©tention . Sauf arbitraire, l'interprÃ©tation de la juridiction nationale supÃ©rieure est, Ã cet Ã©gard, dÃ©terminante . Article 18 de la Convention : Cette disposition ne peut Ã©tre appliquÃ©e que conjointement avec une autre dispositionde la Convention qui garantit un droit sujet Ã restrictions . Article 18 de la Convention combinÃ© avec l'articfe 5, parngraphe 1, litt. 1), de la Convention : En dÃ©tenant une personne en vue de son extradition conformÃ©men t
Ã la jurisprudence de ses tribunaux er sans dÃ©tournement de pouvoir, un Erat ne viole pas ces dispositions, quand bien mÃªme l'intÃ©ressÃ© est tombÃ© entre ses mains Ã la suite de sort expulsion d'un Etat tiers qui avait refusÃ© l'estradition .
EN FAIT (Extrait)
(English : see p . 65)
(Le requÃ©rant, ressortissant italien, a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã la rÃ©clusion Ã vie par contumace en ltalie pour enlÃ¨vement et homicide d'une mineure et autres infractions . Par la suite, il fut arrÃªtÃ© en France mais cet Etat refusa son extradition Ã l'ltalie . Alors qu'il se trouvait en libertÃ©, la police franÃ§aise l'arrÃ©ta, lui notifia un arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion et le conduisit immÃ©diatement Ã la frontiÃ¨re suisse, oÃ¹ ilfut apprÃ©hendÃ© par la police de GenÃ¨ve le 27 octobre 1 979. Devant la Commission, le requÃ©rant est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Mes Dominique Poncet et Philippe Neyroud, avocats Ã GenÃ¨ve, et par Me Dany Cohen, avocat Ã Paris. Pour plus de dÃ©tails, voir p . 12 1 ) Entre-temps, par tÃ©lex du 14 septembre 1979, les autoritÃ©s italiennes avaient demandÃ© aux Etats limitrophes de la France d'intensifier leurs recherches au sujet du requÃ©rant . Elles avaient renouvelÃ© leur demande par tÃ©lex du 24 octobre 1979 . Le 29 octobre 1979, l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police dÃ©cerna un mandat d'arrÃªt Ã l'encontre du requÃ©rant, sur la base duquel il fut maintenu en dÃ©tention en vue de l'extradition . Le 30 octobre 1979 le requÃ©rant prit connaissance du mandat d'arr@t et le signa (I) . Le mÃ©me jour les autoritÃ©s italiennes demandi`rent formellement l'extradition du requÃ©rant . Celui-ci ne forma pas opposition Ã ce moment, mais demanda sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire Ã la chambre d'accusation du canton de GenÃ¨ve . Son avocat fit de mÃ©me le 6 novembre 1979 . InterrogÃ© par les autoritÃ©s policiÃ¨res du canton de GenBve le 14 novembre 1979, le requÃ©rant dÃ©clara alors s'opposer Ã son extradition . Le 19 novembre 1979 la chambre d'accusation du canton de GenÃ©ve se dÃ©clara incompÃ©tente, au motif que . selon le droit suisse applicable, il appartenait uniquement au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral de statuer sur les demandes de mise en libertÃ© provisoire prÃ©sentÃ©es par des personnes dÃ©tenues en vue d'extradition . (t) Dans ce mandat d'arr2t Ã©uit incluse la mention suivante : -voies de droii : la persunne poursuivie pem en tout temps former opposition contre le prÃ©sent mandat d'arrti (an . 23 L . Extr .) . L'opposition sera adressÃ©e en deux exemplaires Ã l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police Ã nerne, Ã l'intention du T ri bunal fldÃ©ral ( . . .)â¢ .
Le 18 dÃ©cembre 1979 le requÃ©rant fotma contre cette dÃ©cision un recours de droit public au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral . II fit valoir que la compÃ©tence du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral en la matiÃ¨re n'Ã©tait pas exclusive et que la chambre d'accusation cantonale pouvait examiner la lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention aux fms de l'extradition . Le 15 janvier 1980 le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral rejeta le recours . II souligna qu'il Ã©tait contraire au droit fÃ©dÃ©ral de reconnaÃ®tre aux autoritÃ©s cantonales le pouvoir de statuer sur une demande de mise en libertÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e par une personne dÃ©tenue provisoirement Ã titre extraditionnel . En effet, seules les autoritÃ©s fÃ©dÃ©rales Ã©taient compÃ©tentes Ã cet Ã©gard . En l'occurrence, il constata que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas, sitÃ´t aprÃ¨s son arrestation, saisi l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police d'une demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire sur laquelle le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral autait ensuite statuÃ© Ã bref dÃ©lai . Et le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ajouta que : -tant qu'une demande de mise en libenÃ© provisoire ne lui aura pas Ã©tÃ© adressÃ©e par l'intermÃ©diaire de l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police, (le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral) ne pourra se prononcer sur la lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention provisoire ordonnÃ©e Ã titre extraditionnel par ceae autoritÃ© administrative . . Sur ce point, il considÃ©ra que le recours de droit public formÃ© par le requÃ©rant ne pouvait Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme une demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire . Le 29 janvier 1980 le requÃ©rant envoya un mÃ©moire Ã l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police Ã l'appui de l'opposition qu'il avait formÃ©e contre la demande d'extradition des autoritÃ©s italiennes . Le 12 mai 1980 le requÃ©rant demanda au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire dans un long exposÃ© complÃ©mentaire Ã son recours de droit public du 18 dÃ©cembre 1979, entretemps rejetÃ© par le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral le 15 janvier 1980 . II demandait Ã©galement Ã Ãªtre entendu Ã nouveau par le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral et Ã ce que son avocat soit autorisÃ© Ã plaider . Il faisait valoir notanunent : - que son arrestation par les autoritÃ©s de police genevoises Ã©tait illÃ©gale du fait qu'elle avait Ã©tÃ© opÃ©rÃ©e en France et que, combinÃ©e Ã l'expulsion administrative intervenue en France, elle tendait Ã Ã©luder la lÃ©gislation de ce pays sur l'extradition ; - que l'illÃ©galitÃ© de son arrestation et de son expulsion intervenues en France devaient entraÃ®ner l'illicÃ©itÃ© de son arrestation en Suisse ; - enfin, que la Suisse devait refuser l'extradition au motif qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ© en direction de ce pays, plutÃ´t qu'en direction d'un pays de son choix et que son expulsion avait Ã©tÃ© accompagnÃ©e d'une remise aux autoritÃ©s suisses . Le 22 mai 1980 le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral rejeta la demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant le 12 mai 1980 . 11 considÃ©ra que le risque de fuite Ã©tait important au vu de l'importance de la peine et de l'attitude du requÃ©rant, et que, par ailleurs, l'inconvÃ©nient rÃ©sultant d'une prolongation de la dÃ©tention n'Ã©tait pas â¢trÃ¨s imponantÂ» attendu que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral allait statuer prochainement sur l'opposition formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant .
Le 13 juin 1980 il rejeta l'opposition formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant et autorisa son extradition vers l'Italie . Pour ce qui Ã©tait de la requÃªte du requÃ©rant demandant Ã Ãªtre entendu en personne, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral estima qu'il avait dÃ©jÃ largement disposÃ© de la possibilitÃ© de faire valoir ses moyens devant l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de police ainsi que devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral par la prÃ©sentation d'un mÃ©moire complÃ©mentaire . Quant Ã l'illÃ©galitÃ© de l'arrestation du requÃ©rant par les autoritÃ©s de police genevoises (au motif qu'elle aurait eu lieu en France et qu'elle tendrait Ã Ã©luder la lÃ©gislation franÃ§aise sur l'extradition), le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral constata que le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© apprÃ©hendÃ© en France en vue de son expulsion et rentis par la police de ce pays Ã celle du canton de GenÃ¨ve . La juridiction suprÃªme adntit qu'il Ã©tait possible, sinon vraisemblable, que les agents suisses s'Ã©taient trouvÃ©s sur le territoire franÃ§ais, lorsqu'ils avaient pris le requÃ©rant en charge . Toutefois, un tel franchissement de frontiÃ¨re ne comportait aucune violation de la souverainetÃ© Ã©trangÃ¨re car il reposait sur des accords internationaux impliquant, dans cette mesure restreinte, une renonciation rÃ©ciproque Ã l'application rigoureuse du principe de souverainetÃ© territoriale . Le fait que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© apprÃ©hendÃ© Ã la frontiÃ¨re puis arrÃ©tÃ© provisoirement sur ordre de l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police Ã©tait d'ailleurs conforme Ã l'article 16 de la Convention europÃ©enne d'extradition relatif Ã l'arrestation provisoire en cas d'urgence . Â«DÃ¨s lors que Bozano Ã©tait recherchÃ© par l'Italie depuis 1975, que cet Etat avait demandÃ© l'entraide des autres Etats et que l'intÃ©ressÃ© figurait depuis lors au 'Moniteur suisse de police', son arrestation s'imposait Ã l'Ã©vidence . . Quant au moyen tirÃ© de ce que l'illÃ©galitÃ© allÃ©guÃ©e de l'arrestation et de l'expulsion intervenues en France devait entrainer l'illicÃ©itÃ© de son arrestation en Suisse, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral considÃ©ra que l'expulsion administrative ne violait pas en soi le droit des gens, mÃªme si elle intervenait aprÃ¨s un refus d'extrader . II estima, par ailleurs, qu'il Ã©tait raisonnable de ne limiter la prohibition de l'expulsion qu'aux rapports entre l'Etat expulsant et l'Etat qui avait ou aurait pu demander l'extradition, sinon les Etats se verraient dans l'impossibilitÃ© d'expulser une personne indÃ©sirable dÃ¨s le moment oÃ¹ celle-ci serait recherchÃ©e pÃ©nalement par n'importe quel Etat . Enfin, quant au fait que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ© en direction de la Suisse plutÃ´t que d'un pays de son choix, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral souligna, en premier lieu, que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas contestÃ© le droit de l'Etat qui expulsait de conduire l'expulsÃ© par la force jusqu'Ã la frontiÃ¨re du pays choisi par l'autoritÃ© nationale . B s'agissait lÃ d'un moyen d'exÃ©cution directe par la contrainte, qui donnait Ã l'Etat la garantie que la mesure d'Ã©loignement qu'il avait ordonnÃ©e avait Ã©tÃ© exÃ©cutÃ©e . Par ailleurs, le droit des gens ne reconnaissait en principe aucun droit de choix Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Le requÃ©rant n'avait pas dÃ©montrÃ© par ailleurs que le fait d'avoir Ã©tÃ© conduit en direction de la Suisse Ã©tait illicite, ni pourquoi cela lui Ã©tait plus dÃ©favorable qu'une autre solution : .rien ne permet d'affirmer que la France ait eu la conviction qu'Ã l'inverse d'un autre pays, la Suisse extraderait l'opposant vers I'Italieâ¢ .
Le 18 juin 1980 le requÃ©rant fut extradÃ© en Italie, oÃ¹ il purge actuellement sa condamnation .
CRIEFS (Extrait ) Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer ainsi : Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en premier lieu, d'avoir Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© irrÃ©guli2rement en 1. vue d'Ãªtre extradÃ© vers l'Italie, en violation de l'article 5, par .1 (() de la Convention . Il souligne Ã cet Ã©gard que les autoritÃ©s de police suisses l'ont apprÃ©hendÃ© en territoire franÃ§ais avec la participation active des autoritÃ©s de police franÃ§aises . Les autoritÃ©s suisses auraient ainsi apportÃ© un concours illicite Ã l'expulsion illÃ©gale et contraire au droit franÃ§ais ainsi qu'au droit des gens, exÃ©culÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s administratives franÃ§aises .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) Sur la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 5 par . I(f) de la Convention, pris isolÃ©ment ou en combinaison avec l'article 18 de la Conventio n (a) Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 5 par .l alinÃ©a (f) de la Convention du fait qu'il fut arrÃªtÃ© par les autoritÃ©s de police suisses en territoire franÃ§ais prÃ¨s de la frontiÃ¨re entre les deux pays . Il reproche Ã celles-ci d'avoir prÃªtÃ© leur concours aux autoritÃ©s administratives franÃ§aises qui l'aumient apprÃ©hendÃ© en violation du droit international . 0 fait valoir que l'illÃ©galitÃ© de son arTestation en France et la maniÃ¨re dont il fut expulsÃ© de ce pays devraient entrainer l'illÃ©galitÃ© de son arrestation extraditionnelle par les autoritÃ©s suisses . L'article 5, par.l(f) de la Convention stipule que : .1 . ( . . .) Nul ne peut Ã©tre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales : ( . . .) (f) s'il s'agit de l'arrestation ou de la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ¨res d'une personne ( . . .) contre laquelle une procÃ©dure d'expulsion ou d'extradition est en coursÂ» . La Commission rappelle sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure dans laquelle elle a toujours interprÃ©lÃ© l'adjectif . rÃ©gulierâ¢ figurant Ã l'alinÃ©a (f) ainsi que dans les autres alinÃ©as de l'article 5, par . 1 comme signiftant . rÃ©gulier au regard de la lÃ©gislation applicableÂ» (v . No . 6871/75, dÃ©c . 3 .3 .78, D .R . 12 p . 14, 26 ; No . 7256/75, dÃ©c . 10 . 12 .76, D .R . 8 p . 161 ; No . 9012/80, dÃ©c . 9 .12 . 80, D .R . 24 p . 205) . L'extradition entre la Suisse et l'Italie est rÃ©gie par la Convention europÃ©enne d'extradition du 13 dÃ©cembre 1957 qui, comme l'a soulignÃ© le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral dan s
son arrÃªt du 13 juin 1980, l'emporte sur la loi imerne sur l'extradition, dont les dispositions ne sont applicables que sur des points qui ne sont pas rÃ©gis exhaustivement par une convention . Son article 16 stipule qu' . en cas d'urgence, les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes de la Partie requÃ©rante pourront demander l'arrestation provisoire de l'individu recherchÃ© ; les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes de la Partie requise statueront sur cette demande conformÃ©ment Ã la loi de cette PartieÂ» . D'autre part, la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'extradition aux Etats Ã©trangers du 22 janvier 1892 dispose dans son anicle 20, par . 1 que -dans les cas graves et s'il y a pÃ©ril en la demeure, les organes de la police cantonale pourront de leur propre chef procÃ©der Ã l'arrestation d'un individu dont une police Ã©trangÃ¨re a publiÃ© le signalement . Ils en informeront le Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral- . AussitÃ´t l'arrestation opÃ©rÃ©e, il sera procÃ©dÃ© Ã l'interrogatoire de l'individu arrÃªtÃ© (article 21, par . 1), lequel sera invitÃ© Ã dÃ©clarer s'il consent Ã @tre livrÃ© ou si, au contraire, il s'oppose Ã son extradition (m@me article, par . 2) . Dans ce dernier cas, le Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral transmettra le dossier au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral (anicle 23, par . I), qui prononcera s'il y a lieu ou non de procÃ©der Ã l'extradition (article 24) . Dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, la Commission constate que le requÃ©rant fut arrÃ©tÃ© par les aworitÃ©s de police du canton de GenÃ¨ve le 27 octobre 1979 du fait qu'il Ã©tait recherchÃ© par les autoritÃ©s italiennes . En effet, depuis une demande de celles-ci datÃ©e du 1Â°' avril 1976 dans le cadre de l'Interpol, le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© inscrit au Moniteur suisse de police du 5 avril 1976 sous mandat d'arrÃªt extraditionnel . Cet avis n'a pas Ã©tÃ© rÃ©voquÃ© par la suite . Le fait que des agents suisses aient pÃ©nÃ©trÃ© sur territoire franÃ§ais pour recevoir le requÃ©rant, Ã supposer qu'il soit avÃ©rÃ©, a Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ© par le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral comme ne violant ni la loi suisse ni les normes rÃ©gissant les rapports entre la Suisse et la France . En l'absence de tout arbitraire dans cette dÃ©cision, la Commission n'a pas Ã substituer une autre interprÃ©tation de la loi nationale Ã celle de la juridiction suprÃªme du pays . Le 29 octobre 1979 un mandat d'arrÃ¨t fut dÃ©cernÃ© contre le requÃ©rant par l'Offlce fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police, sur la base duquel le requÃ©rant fut maintenu en dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition . InterrogÃ© le 14 novembre 1979 par l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente, il dÃ©clara s'opposer Ã son extradition . Vu son opposition, le Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral transmit le dossier au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, lequel dÃ©cida le 13 juin 1980 qu'il y avait lieu de procÃ©der Ã l'extradition . Au vu de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de, la Commission estime que l'arrestation et la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant en vue de l'extradition Ã©taient â¢rÃ©guli8resâ¢ au sens de l'article 5, par . 1(1) de la Convention, dans la mesure oÃ¹ l'arrestation et la dÃ©tention ont Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©es conformÃ©ment Ã la loi et n'Ã©taient pas entachÃ©es d'arbitraire . Elle constate en outre qu'une procÃ©dure d'extradition du requÃ©rant sur demande adressÃ©e par l'Italie Ã la Suisse Ã©tait en cours . Il n'y a donc pas apparence de violation de l'article 5, par . I(f) de la Convention, pris isolÃ©ment .
(b) Le requÃ©rant se plaint, il est vrai, que son arrestation et dÃ©tention par les autoritÃ©s suisses constitueraient Ã©galement une violation de l'article 18 de la Convention . Cet article dispose que : Â«Les restrictions qui, aux termes de la prÃ©sente Convention, sont apportÃ©es auxdits droits et libertÃ©s ne peuvent Ãªtre appliquÃ©es que dans le but pour lequel elles ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©vuesÂ» . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission rappelle que l'article 18 de la Convention n'a pas un rÃ´le indÃ©pendant et qu'il ne peut Ãªtre appliquÃ© que conjointement Ã d'autres articles de la Convention . Il dÃ©coule en outre des termes de l'article 18 qu'il ne saurait y avoir de violation que si le droit ou la libertÃ© en question peut Ãªtre soumis Ã des restrictions aux termes de la Convention . Tel est la cas du droit Ã la libertÃ©, puisque ce droit peut Ãªtre restreint conformÃ©ment aux alinÃ©as (a) Ã (f) de l'article 5 . En l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de sa libertÃ© dans le cadre d'une procÃ©dure d'extradition . La Commission rappelle Ã cet Ã©gard que l'extradition entre la Suisse et l'Italie est rÃ©gie par la Convention europÃ©enne d'extradition conclue le 13 dÃ©cembre 1957 . Les autoritÃ©s suisses devaient, aux termes de l'article 16 de cene Convention combinÃ© avec l'article 20 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'extradition, arrÃ©ter le requÃ©rant Ã la demande des autoritÃ©s italiennes . Elle relÃ¨ve par ailleurs qu'il est de jurisprudence constante que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ne refuse pas l'extradition Ã l'Italie d'une personne devant purger une peine prononcÃ©e par contumace . La Commission admet donc que les autoritÃ©s suisses ne pouvaient se soÃ»straire Ã leurs obligations conventionnelles envers l'Italie, quand bien mÃªme, comme dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, la personne dont l'extradition Ã©tait requise avait Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ©e vers la frontiÃ¨re suisse par un pays tiers . II ressort de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de qu'aucun dÃ©tournement de pouvoir ne peut Ã©tre Ã©tabli et qu'il n'y a donc en l'espÃ¨ce aucune apparence de violation de l'article 18 de la Convention, combinÃ© avec l'article 5 . Le grief est donc manifestement mal fondÃ© et doit Ã¨tre rejetÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention .
(Ã¯RANSLATlON) THE FACTS (Extract ) (/he app(icant, an Italian nationa(, was convicted in absentia of kidnapping and murdering a minor and of other offences and was sentenced to life imprisonment . He was subsequently arrested in France, but that country refused to extradite him to Italy. While he was at liberyy, the French police arrested him, served a deportation order on him and took him immediafely to the Swiss border, where he was arrested by the Geneva police on 27 October 1 979 . Before the Commission the applicant is represenfed by MM. Dominique Poncet and Philippe Neyroud of the Geneva Bar and Mr Dany Cohen of the Paris Bar. For furrher particulars, see p. 1 33) . ............... In the meantime, by telex of 14 September 1979, Lhe Italian authorities ha d requested the States sharing a border with France to step up their inquiries in respect of the applicant . This request was renewed by telex on 24 October 1979 . On 29 October 1979 the Federal Police Office issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest, on the basis of which he was held in custody with a view to extradition . On 30 October 1979 the arrest warrant was served on the applicant and he signed it (1) . On the same day the Italian authorities formally requested the applicant's extradition . The applicant did not object at this juncture but applied to the Indictment Division of Lhe Canton of Geneva for bail . His lawyer did the same on 6 November 1979 . When the police authorities of Lhe Canton of Geneva questioned him on 14 November 1979 the applicant said he objected to being extradited . On 19 November 1979 Lhe Indictment Division of the Canton of Geneva held that it had no jurisdiction on the ground that under the relevant Swiss law the Federal Court had sole jurisdiction to rule on applications for bail made by persons held in custody pending extradition proceedings . On 18 December 1979 the applicant lodged a public law appeal against thi s
decision with the Federa) Court . He argued that the Federal Court's jurisdiction i n (1) The arrsi warrant included the following information : "Legal remedies : a penan being proceeded ageinst shall at all times be able io objeci to the present warrant for his arrest (Extndiction Aal . Seclion 23) . The objection shall be sent in dupliwte to ihe Federnl Police Office in Bem, for forwarding iu the Federal Coun . .
the matter was not an exclusive one and that the cantonal Indictment Division could review the lawfulness of detention pending extradition proceedings . On 15 January 1980 the Federal Court dismissed the appeal . It pointed out that it would be contrary to federal law to hold that cantonal authorities had power to hear applications for bail made by persons held in custody pending extradition proceedings . Only the federal authorities had jurisdiction in this sphere . In the case it found that the applicant had not made an application for bail to the Federal Police Office immediately afier his arrest-an application which the Federal Court would have heard speedily . The Federal Court added : "until such time as an application for bail has been made to it through the Federal Police Office, [the Federal Court] cannot rule on the lawfulness of detention ordered by this administrative authoriry pending extradition proceedings" (translation) . On this point it held that the applicant's public law appeal could not be regarded as an application for bail . On 29 January 1980 the applicant sent written pleadings to the Federal Police Office in support of his objection to the Italian authorities' extradition request . On 12 May 1980 the applicant applied for bail to the Federal Court in a lon g statement supplementing his public law appeal of 18 December 1979, which had in the meantime been dismissed by the Federal Court on 15 January 1980 . He also sought a further hearing by the Federal Court and permission for his counsel to appear on his behalf . He claimed inter alia that : i . his arrest by the Geneva police authorities was unlawful because it had been made in France and, combined with the administrative deportation ordered in France, had been designed to circumvent French legislation on extradition ; ii . the unlawfulness of his arrest in France and his deportation from that country meant that his arrest in Switzerland was unlawful ; an d iii . Switzerland should refuse to extradite him on the grounds that he had been deported to Switzerland rather than to a country of his own choosing and that on being deported he had been handed over to the Swiss authorities . On 22 May 1 980 the Federal Court dismissed the application for bail made by the applicant on 12 May 1980 . It held that there was a substantial risk of his absconding in view of his heavy sentence and his attitude and the fact that the inconvenience resulting from a prolongation of his detention was not "very great" given that the Federal Court was shortly to determine his appeal . On 13 June 1980 it dismissed the applicant's appeal and authorised his extradition to Italy . As regards the applicant's petition to be heard in person, the Federal Court considered that he had already had more than enough scope for putting his arguments to the Federal Police Office and to the Federal Court through having submitted his supplementary pleadings .
As to the unlawfulness of the applicant's arrest by the Geneva police (because it took place in France and was designed to circumvent French legislation on extradition) the Federal Court found that the applicant had been detained in France with a view to being deported and had been handed over by the French police to the Geneva police . It conceded that it was possible, if not probable, that the Swiss policemen were on French territory when they took charge of the applicant . However, such a crossing of the border did not give rise to any violation of foreign sovereignty, because it was based on international agreements entailing, to this limited extent, a mutual willingness not to apply the principle of territorial sovereignty strictly . The fact that the applicant was detained at the border and then taken into custody on the orders of the Federal Police Office was consistent with the European Convention on Extradition, Article 16 of which related to provisional arrest in cases of urgency . "Given Ihat Bozano had been sought by Italy since 1975, that Italy had requested the assistance of other States and that Bozano had been included since then in the Swiss Police Gazette ('Moniteur suisse de police'), his arrest was clearly essential" (translation) .
As to the argument that the alleged unlawfulness of the arrest in France and the deportation from that country must mean that the applicant's arrest in Switzerland was unlawful, the Federal Court held that the administrative deportation did not in itself violate intemational law, even if it occurred after extradition had been refused . It also considered that it was reasonable to restrict the prohibition on deportation to relations between the deporting State and the State which had, or might have . requested extradition, because otherwise States would be unable to deport any undesirable person once that person was being sought for criminal proceedings by any other State .
Lastly, as to the fact that the applicant was deponed to Switzerland rather Ihan to a country of his own choosing, the Federal Court pointed out first, that the applicant had not challenged the right of the deporting State to take the deportee forcibly to the border of the country chosen by the national authority . This was a means of direct enforcement by coercion, which afforded the State the guarantee that the expulsion measure it had ordered had been carried out . Furthermore, international law did not normally recognise that the person concemed had any right of choice . Nor had the applicant shown that his having been taken to Switzerland was unlawful or why that should have been more disadvantageous to him than any other arrangement : "nothing justifies the assertion that France was convinced that, unlike some other country, Switzerland would extradite the appellant to Italy" (translation) .
On 18 June 1980 the applicant was extradited to Italy, where he is currently serving his sentence .
COMPLAINTS ( Extract) The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows . 1 . The applicant complains first that he was unlawfully arrested with a view to being extradited to Italy, in breach of Article 5 para . 1(f) of the Convention . He points out in this connection that the Swiss police authorities detained him on French territory with the active participation of the French police authorities . He alleges that the Swiss authorities thus unlawfully co-operated in a deportation that contravened both French and international law and was effected by the French administrative authorities .
TFE LAW (Extract ) 1 . As to the alleged breach of Article 5 para . 1(Q of the Convention, taken alone or together with Article 18 of the Convention (a) The applicant alleges a breach of Article 5 para . 1(Q of the Convention on the ground that he was arrested by the Swiss police on French territory near the border between the two countries . He accuses the Swiss police of having given assistance to the French administrative authorities, who detained him in breach of international law . He argues that the unlawfulness of his arrest in France and the manner in which he was deported must mean that his arrest by the Swiss authorities with a view to extradition was unlawful . Article 5 para . 1(f) of the Convention provides : "1 . ( . . .) no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law : ( . . .) f . the lawful arrest or detention of a person ( . . .) against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition . " The Commission draws attention to earlier cases, in which it has always interpreted the adjective "lawful" in sub-paragraph (f) and in the other sub-paragraphs of Article 5 para . I as meaning a lawful with regard to the applicable legislation (see No . 6871/75, Dec . 3 .3 .78, D .R . 12 p . 14, 18 ; No . 7256/75, Dec . 10 .12 .76, D .R . 8 p . 161 and No . 9012/80, Dec . 9 .12 .80, D .R . 24 p . 205) . Extradition between Switzerland and Italy is governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 which, as the Federal Court pointed out in its judgment of 14 June 1980, prevails over domestic extradition law, whose provisions apply only to questions not covered exhaustively by a Convention . Article 16 of that Convention provides : "In case of urgency the competent authoritie s
of the requesting Pany may request the provisional arrest of the person sought . The competent authorities of the requested Party shall decide the matter in accordance with its law" . On the other hand, the Federal Act of 22 January 1892 on extradition to foreign States provides in Section 20 (1) :"In serious cases and where it would be dangerous to delay, the cantonal police may proceed to arrest on their own authority a person whose description has been issued by a foreign police force . They shall inform the Federal Council accordingly" (translation) . As soon as the arrest has been made, the arrested person shall be questioned (Section 22 (1)) and asked to state whether he consents to being extradited (Section 21 (2)) . In the latter case the Federal Council shall forward the file to the Federal Court (Section 23 (1)), which shall rule whether or not to proceed with extradition (Section 24) . In the present case the Commission finds that the applicant was arrested by the police authorities of the Canton of Geneva on 27 October 1979 because he was being sought by the Italian authorities . Following a request made by the latter through Interpol on I April 1976, the applicant was included in the Swiss Police Gazette ("Moniteur suisse de police") of 5 April 1976 in the list of persons whose arrest and extradition were being sought . This notice had not subsequently been withdrawn . The fact that the Swiss policemen entered French territory to take charge of the applicant assuming this to be admined, was held by the Federal Court not to be a breach either of Swiss law or of the rules governing relations between Switzerland and France . Given that there is no hint of arbitrariness in that decision, it is not for the Commission to substitute its own interpretation of national law for that of the Swiss supreme court . On 29 October 1979 a warrant for the applicant's arrest was issued by the Federal Police Office on the basis of which the applicant was held in custody with a view to extradition . When questioned by the appropriate authorities on 14 November 1979, he said he objected to being extradited . In view of his objection, the Federal Council forwarded the file to the Federal Court, which decided on 13 June 1980 that the extradition should proceed . In the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the applicant's arrest and detention with a view to extradition were "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 para . I(f) of the Convention in that they were ordered in accordance with the law and were not tainted with any arbitrariness . It also finds that action was being taken with a view to the extradition of the applicant as a result of a request made to Switzerland by Italy . Accordingly no breach appears to be disclosed of Article 5 para . I (f) of the Convention taken alone . (b) The applicant also complains, however, that his arrest and detention by the Swiss authorities were in breach of Article 18 of the Convention .
This Article provides : "The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed" . In this connection, the ComnÃ¹ssion points out that Article 18 of the Conventio n does not have any independent role and that it can only be applied in conjunction with other articles of the Convention . This is the case with the right to freedom, since this right can be restricted in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) - (f) of Article 5 para . 1 . In the present case the applicant was deprived of his liberty in connection with extradition proceedings . The Commission points out that extradition between Switzerland and Italy is governed by the European Convention on Extradition concluded on 13 December 1957 . By Article 16 of that Convention, taken together with Section 20 of the Federal Act on extradition, the Swiss authorities were bound to arrest the applicant at the request of the Italian authorities . It also notes that the Federal Court has consistendy declined to refuse extradition to Italy of persons sentenced in absentia . The Commission accordingly recognises that the Swiss authorities could not avoid their treaty obligations to Italy even if, as in the present case, the person whose extradition was being sought had been deported to the Swiss frontier by a third country . It follows from the foregoing that no misuse of powers can be established and that the present case does not appear to disclose any breach of Anicle 18 of the Convention taken together with Anicle 5 . The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuan t to Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
-70-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 12/07/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page