Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19800312-878879
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 14:43:27+00:00
Document Index: 181348791

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 27", "l'article 26", "l'article 5", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Radiation partielle du rôle ; Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (deuxième requérant)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8788/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-03-12;8788.79 Parties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8788/79 X . v/SWITZERLAN D
X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 12 March 1980 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 mars 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 5, paragraph I(c) of the Convention : This provision permits the detention on remand of an extradited accused even after the judicial inrestigation has been concluded, where other charges are postponed pending a further applicâ¢ation for extradition . Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention : There is nothing to prevent the taking into account of the threat of further criminal proceedings. even ifthev depend upon a State granting extradition . in evaluating the risk of jlight as an elentent justifping the contirruation of detention on remand .
Article 5, paragraphe 1, lltt . cl, de la Conven tl on : Cette disposition autorise la dÃ©tention provisoire d'un inculpÃ© extradÃ© . y compris aprÃ¨s la clÃ´ture de l'instruction, alors m@me que d'autres inculpations sont tenues en suspens par la nÃ©cessitÃ© d'une demande complÃ©mentaire d'extradition . Article 5, paraQraphe 3, de la Convention : Pour apprÃ©cier le risque de fuite . comme Ã©lÃ©ment justifiant le maintien en dÃ©tention provisoire, rien n'empÃ©che de tenir compte de la menace de nouvelles poursuites pÃ©nales subordonnÃ©es Ã l'accord de l'Etat ayant accordÃ© l'extradition .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits per tinents (English : see p . 243) Ressortissant italien . le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© anÃ©tÃ© en France et extradÃ© Ã la Suisse. oÃ¹ il Ã©tait recherchÃ© pour escroquerie . A la fin de l'instruction. le juge d Ã¯ nstructimt de GenÃ¨ve a demandÃ© le rnaintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention provisoire (article 35 . paragraphe 2. du
Code genevois de procÃ©dure pÃ©rtale) . en souLgnant que ses investigations avaient rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© 1existence de faits pouvant eâ¢onstituer deux autres escroqueries . Le requÃ©rant s'est vu refuser sa mise en libertÃ© et une demande complÃ©ntentaire d'extradition a Ã©tÃ© adressÃ©e Ã la . France au tilre des deux autres eseâ¢roqueries . Le TribunalfÃ©dÃ©ral a rejetÃ© en novembre /979 un recours de droit public forniÃ© par le requÃ©ranf contre son ni aintien en dÃ©tention .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en premier lieu, que sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive est illÃ©gale . 11 fait valoir qu'il est dÃ©tenu Ã raison de deux affaires pour lesquelles son extradition par la France n'a pas Ã©tÃ© obtenue . Il invoque l'article 5, paragraphe I . litt . c), de la Convention, ainsi conÃ§u : â¢ Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales : . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . c) s'il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© et dÃ©tenu en vue d'Ãªtre conduit devant l'autoritÃ© judiciaire compÃ©tente, lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il a commis une infraction ou qu'il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire Ã la nÃ©cessitÃ© de l'empÃªcher de commettre une infraction ou de s'enfuir aprÃ¨s I-accontplissentent de celle-ci . La Commission constate que le requÃ©rant - il ne le conteste pas - est inculpÃ© Ã GenÃ¨ve d'une escroquerie pour laquelle son extradition a Ã©tÃ© obtenue des autoritÃ©s francaises . Elle note que les articles 17 et 25 de la Constitution genevoise et les articles 34 et 35 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale genevois autorisent l'arrestation et la dÃ©tention provisoire d'un inculpÃ© . Ces constataiions suftisent Ã Ã©tayer la conclusion que le requÃ©rant est privÃ© de sa libertÃ© selon les voies lÃ©gales parce qu'il y a des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il a commis une infraction . En effet, il est dÃ©tenu pour une affaire dont l'extradition fut accordÃ©e . et il est sans pertinence, en l'espÃ¨ce, que le juge d'instruction ait estimÃ© qu'une extension de la demande d'extradition Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire pour deux autres affaires . Il n'y a donc, en l'espÃ¨ce, aucune apparence de violation de l'article 5, paragraphe I, de la Convention, de sorte que cette partie de la requ@te est manifestentent mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en deuxiÃ¨me lieu, de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Il allÃ¨gue que celle-ci, dÃ¨s le ntoment oÃ¹ l'instruction a Ã©tÃ© close quant aux faits Ã raison desquels il a Ã©tÃ© extradÃ©, a dÃ©passÃ© le dÃ©lai raisonnable â¢ prÃ©vu Ã I-articlc 5 . paragraphe 3 . de la Convention .-24
A supposer mÃªme que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours inlernes, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, la Commission note, en premier lieu, que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, dans son arrÃªt du . . . novembre 1979 . a estimÃ© que le maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention au-delÃ de juillet 1979 . Ã©poque de la clÃ´ture de l'instruction, se justifiait par le seul risque de fuite . Selon la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, il faut, pour reconnaitre l'existence d'un danger de fuite, qu'un ensemble de circonstances, notammeni la lourde peine Ã prÃ©voir, ou l'intolÃ©rance particuliÃ¨re de l'accusÃ© pour la dÃ©tention . ou le nianque d'attaches solides dans le pays, permettent de prÃ©sunier que les consÃ©quences et risques de la fuite lui apparaitront comme un mal moindre que la continuation de l'eniprisonnement (Affaire StÃ¼gmÃ¼ller . ArrÃªt du 10 noventbre 1969 . En droit, paragraphe 15) . En l'espÃ¨ce . le grief du requÃ©rant se limite Ã dÃ©nier aux autoritÃ©s suisses le droit d'utiliser, comnie Ã©lÃ©ment concret d'apprÃ©ciation du danger de fuite, la nienace de nouvelles inculpations qui pourraient Ãªtre prononcÃ©es contre le requÃ©rant si la demande complÃ©mentaire d'extradition est accueillie par les autoritÃ©s franÃ§aises . Or, il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour, citÃ©e ci-avant, que, pour apprÃ©cier l'existence d'un danger de fuite, les autoritÃ©s nationales compÃ©tentes peuvent tenir compte de l'ensemble des circonstances du cas d'espÃ¨ce . Rien ne leur interdit, en consÃ©quence de prendre en considÃ©ration la menace de nouvelles poursuites pÃ©nales, mÃªme si l'ouverture de celles-ci est subordonnÃ©e Ã l'accord de l'Etat qui a extradÃ© .
Il s'ensuit que le grief que le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend fonder sur l'article 5, paragraphe 3, de la Convention, doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
Summary of the relevant facts The applicam . an Italian national. was arrested in France and extradited to Switzerland. where he was wanted for fraud . At the end of his investigation the investigating judge in Geneva requested that the applicarrt should continue to be detained on remarrd (Article 35 . paragraph 2. of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Geneva) . on the basis that his investigations had revealed the existence o(new facts which might amount to two further cases o(fraud .
The appbinnt's application (or release was refused and afurther request for extradition was rnade to France on the basis of the two other allegations of fraud. In November 1 979 the Federal Court rejected a public law appeal by the applicant against his continued detention .
(TRANSLAT/ON) THE LAW (Extract) I . The applicant complains . first, that his detention on remand is unlawful . He argues that he is detained in connection with two cases for which France has not extradited him . He relies on Article 5, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention, which reads : "Everyone has the right to liberty and securiti of person . No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance wiih a procedure prescribed by law : ............... c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so . " The Commission notes that the applicant-who does not deny it-has been charged in Geneva with fraud, for which his extradition has been obtained froni the French authorities . It notes that Articles 17 and 25 of the Constitution of Geneva and Sections 34 and 35 of the Geneva Code of Penal Procedure authorise the arrest and remand in custody of an accused person . These findings are sufficient basis for the conclusion that the applicant is deprived of his liberty in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law because there is good reason to suspect that he has committed an offence . Indeed . he is detained in connection with a case for which extradition has becn granted, and it is irrelevant to the case in point whether the examining niagistrate thought it necessary to extend the request for eztradition to cover two other cases . In this case, consequently, there is no indication of a violation of Article S . paragraph l, of the Convention, and consequently this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 .
2 . The applicant complains, secondly, ef the length of his delention on reniand . He alleges that, since the end of the investigation into the facts by reason of which he was extradited, his detention has exceeded the "reasonable tiniÃ©" laid down in Article S . paragraph 3 . of the Convention . Even assuming that the applicant has exhausted the domestic remedies in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, the Commission notes first that in its judgment of . . . November 1979, the Federal Court found that the prolongation of the applicant's detention beyond Julv 1979, when the prcliniinary investigation ended, was justified by the risk of flight alone . According to the European Court of Human Rights, in order for the danger of an accused's absconding to exist, there must be a whole set of circunistances, particularly the heavy sentence to be expected or the accused's particular distate for detention, or the lack of well-established ties with the cnunlry, which give reason tu suppose that the consequences and hazards of Ilight will seem to him to be a lesser evil than cnnlinued intprisonmcnt (Stiigntiiller case, Judgment of 10 November 1969, "As to the law", para . 15) . In the case in point, the applicant's complaint is limited to a denial that the Swiss authorities have the right to take into account, as a practical factor in assessing the risk of absconding, the threat of further charges which might he brought against the applicant if the French authorities were to accede to thc additional request for extradition .
It is clear from the Court's case-law as cited above that, in order to assess the existence of a risk of Ilight, the competent national authorities can take all the circumstances of the particular case into account . Consequently . thcre is nothing to prevent them from taking into consideration the titreat of l'urther criniinal proceedings, even if the institution of those proceedings depends on the agreement of the extraditing State . It follows that the complaint which the applicant claims to base on Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention .
- 245 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 12/03/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page