003-68427-68895

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    506  28.9.99   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIVET v. FRANCE      In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 28 September 1999 in the case of Civet v. France (application no. 29340/95) the European Court of Human Rights held by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it was unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case (Article 5 § 3 - right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).   1. Principal facts    The applicant, Daniel Civet, a French national, was born in 1947 and is currently in prison in Aiguebelle (France).    The applicant, who was the subject of a criminal investigation into allegations that he had committed a number of rapes, was charged and remanded in custody on 7 October 1993 by an investigating judge of Saint-Etienne tribunal de grande instance. From May 1994, the applicant submitted a number of applications for release, which were all dismissed by the investigating judge and the Indictment Division of the Lyons Court of Appeal. On 4 October 1994 the Court of Cassation struck out his sole appeal on points of law against a judgment upholding the dismissal of his application for release. On 27 June 1996 the applicant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Assize Court for the département of the Loire.   2. Procedure and composition of the Court    The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 March 1995. Having found the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 16 April 1998 in which it established the facts and expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (twelve votes to three). The case was brought before the Court by the French Government on 19 June 1998.    Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998, the date on which the Protocol entered into force. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President, Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Sir Nicolas Bratza (British), Luigi Ferrari Bravo[1] (Italian), Lucius Caflisch[2] (Swiss), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), András Baka (Hungarian), Egils Levits (Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges,   and also Michele de Salvia, Registrar.   3. Summary of the judgment[3]    Complaint    The applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).    Decision of the Court    Government’s preliminary objections    The Government’s main submission, as it had been before the Commission, was that Mr Civet had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had failed to submit the ground of appeal based on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for examination by the Court of Cassation. The Government contended that an appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation was a remedy which should have been used in relation to pre-trial detention.    The Court noted that the Court of Cassation was indeed bound by the Indictment Division’s unappealable findings of fact. That position was justified by the nature of an appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation, a remedy whose purpose was different from that of an ordinary appeal. As the possibilities of appealing to the Court of Cassation were limited by Article 591 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to breaches of the law, the Court of Cassation, unlike a court of appeal, did not have jurisdiction to reassess matters of pure fact.    However, in the Court’s opinion, this did not mean that the “facts” and the “law” could be conceived of as two radically separate fields or that reasoning which effectively denied that the two were interwoven and were complementary was acceptable. Notwithstanding that its jurisdiction was limited to examining grounds “of law”, the Court of Cassation nonetheless had the task of checking that the facts found by the tribunals of fact supported the conclusions reached by them on the basis of those findings. Thus, over and above examining whether a judgment referred to it complied with the formal requirements, the Court of Cassation ascertained that, regard being had to the facts of the case, the Indictment Division had given adequate reasons for its decision to prolong pre-trial detention. If it had not, its decision would be quashed. The Court therefore considered that the Court of Cassation was in a position to assess, on the basis of its examination of the proceedings, whether the judicial authorities had complied with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.    In sum, Mr Civet, in failing to appeal to the Court of Cassation, did not provide the French courts with the opportunity which was in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35, namely the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them. The objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted was therefore well-founded.   Judges Palm, Bratza, Fischbach, Hedigan and Zupančič expressed a dissenting opinion and this is annexed to the judgment.    The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.dhcour.coe.eng) on the day of their delivery.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)  Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91    The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Elected as the judge in respect of San Marino. [2] Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.