Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22

September 2000

Laumont v. France (dec.) - 43626/98

Decision 31.8.2000 [Section II]

Article 5

Article 5-1

Lawful arrest or detention

Accused kept on remand, the Indictment Chamber having failed to commit him for trial in the Court of Assizes: admissible

The applicant was suspected of having taken part in an armed robbery. In January 1995 the investigating judge in ch arge of the case ordered his pre-trial detention and issued a warrant for that purpose. The detention was then extended three times for four-month periods. The final extension took effect on 19 September 1996. On 30 September 1996 the investigating judge o rdered the transfer of the file to the public prosecutor's office at the court of appeal so that the indictment division could prepare the indictment against the applicant before the assize court. The effect of such a transfer is that the investigating jud ge no longer has jurisdiction over the case and cannot, therefore, hear bail applications. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the initial order for pre-trial detention remains valid until the indictment division has delivered its decisi on. Consequently, the applicant remained in custody pending that decision. Under Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the indictment division had two months from the date of transfer of the file in which to rule, failing which the accused had to b e released. On 27 November 1996 the indictment division ordered additional investigations. Under the case-law of the Court of Cassation, ordering additional investigations is equivalent to ruling for the purposes of Article 214 and means that the indictmen t division does not have to take a decision regarding pre-trial detention. As the final extension of pre-trial detention had expired on 19 January 1997 the applicant required the prison authorities to state the basis for his continued detention. In reply t he prison authorities advised that he remained in detention pursuant to the investigating judge’s order transferring the case to the indictment division on 30 September 1996 and that division’s decision of 27 November 1996. Arguing that the indictment divi sion had not made a ruling and that his detention was therefore no longer justified, the applicant sought his release. The indictment division dismissed that application. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the indict ment division had requested an additional investigation within the period prescribed by Article 214 and that the initial warrant for detention would consequently remain valid until a decision had been taken on whether to indict him. In June 1998 the applic ant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

Admissible under Article 5 § 1.

© 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