The applicant complained, inter alia, of the length of time he had spent in detention while on remand from 24 February to 12 May 1961, that is, two months and sixteen days, and from 12 July 1962 to 16 September 1964, that is two years, two months and four days. The Court had found that there had been a breach of Article 5(3) in that his detention had been continued for longer than a reasonable time. He was later convicted and sentenced by the Court in Austria, and the time spent on remand had been deducted in full from the time to be served. The court now considered the damages whoch might be awarded.
Held: ‘Some losses must have followed from the excessive prolongation of the detention in question but it proves very difficult to isolate and unravel them from those which Neumeister and the Scherzinger company would have had to bear in any event. The Court does not find it necessary on this point to embark on additional proceedings. In effect, the time the applicant had spent in detention on remand was reckoned as part of his sentence and, more especially, he was granted remission of the remainder of his sentence’. However, in spite of the measures already taken in favour of the applicant in Austria, the damage resulting from the breach of Article 5 (3) ‘in itself’ in addition calls for some element of monetary compensation of which it is for the Court to assess the amount in the light of all the circumstances of the case. Here, the finding of a violation was sufficient to afford just satisfaction. The circumstances of the case included (i) that the detention on remand was justified, and (ii) that the period on remand had been deducted in full from the sentence.
Pallierii P
1936/63, [1974] ECHR 1, [1974] ECHR 1, (1979) 1 EHRR 136, 1936/63
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Neumeister v Austria ECHR 6-Jul-1964
The applicant complained of his excessive detention on remand pending trial, suspected of fraud. . .
See Also – Neumeister v Austria ECHR 27-Jun-1968
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved . .
Cited by:
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510158