BONNECHAUX AGAINST SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 8224/78 • ECHR ID: 001-49235

Document date: June 27, 1980

Doc ref: 8224/78 • ECHR ID: 001-49235

Document date: June 27, 1980

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

referred to as "the convention"),

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention

relating to the application lodged by Mr Georges Bonnechaux against

Switzerland (No. 8224/78);

Whereas on 6 February 1980 the Commission transmitted the said report

to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention

has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European

Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the

convention;

Whereas in his application introduced on 4 November 1977, the

applicant complained of the duration of his detention pending trial,

claiming that the persistent refusal of the judicial authorities to

release him provisionally on adequate bail was quite unjustified and

constituted inhuman treatment given his age and state of health;

Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application

admissible on 5 December 1978, has expressed in its report by 11 votes

to 1 the opinion that the applicant's detention pending trial did not

last longer than "the reasonable time" prescribed in Article 5,

paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention and that consequently there

has been no breach of that article, and unanimously that there has

been no breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention in this case;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the convention,

Decides that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant