Information Note on the Court’s case-law 58

November 2003

Pantano v. Italie - 60851/00

Judgment 6.11.2003 [Section I]

Article 5

Article 5-3

Length of pre-trial detention

Length of detention on remand (2 years, 8 months and 14 days): no violation

Facts : On 12 July 1996, the applicant was placed in provisional detention for association with mafia-type criminals. His trial, before an assize court, ended on 26 March 1999, when he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant therefore remained in provisional detention for two years, eight months and fourteen days. His applications for release were all dismissed. As he was being prosecuted for a particularly serious offence, the conditions necessary to authorise deprivation of freedom were presumed to exist, after a certain time, in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Law: Article 5 § 3 – The decisions to extend the provisional detention, based on a presump tion of the existence of circumstances demanding detention, linked with the risk of flight and tampering with evidence, and also the danger of re-offending (Article 275 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), were neither unreasonable nor manifestly unfair , since the proceedings against the applicant concerned offences linked to mafia-type crime. In the specific context of the fight against the mafia, a statutory presumption of danger which is not irrebuttable but may be rebutted by proof to the contrary, m ay be justified. As regards the conduct of the proceedings, the delay associated with a lawyers’ strike does not render the State liable and the overall period attributable to the judicial authorities, namely five months and twenty-eight days, is not unrea sonable. Furthermore, and above all, the total length of the provisional detention – two years, eight months and fourteen days – is not excessive (cf. Contrada , Reports 1998-V), in the light of the gravity of the offences alleged and of the complexity of t he case, which involved proceedings concerning the mafia against forty-eight persons accused in all of more than sixty offences, and which required a large number of measures of investigation.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimous).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes