Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MORGANTI v. FRANCE - 17831/91 [1995] ECHR 23 (13 July 1995)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1995/23.html
Cite as: (1996) 21 EHRR 34, [1995] ECHR 23, 21 EHRR 34
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of Morganti v. France (1),
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in
accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the
Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A (2),
as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr J. De Meyer,
Mrs E. Palm,
Mr F. Bigi,
Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr P. Jambrek,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 June 1995,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on
that date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 38/1995/544/630. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since
its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating
applications to the Commission.
2. Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the
entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) and thereafter only to
cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They
correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983,
as amended several times subsequently.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the French
Government ("the Government") on 13 April 1995. It originated
in an application (no. 17831/91) against the French Republic
lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the
Commission") under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention on
15 February 1990 by a French national, Mr Michel Morganti.
The Government's application referred to Articles 44
and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France
recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46)
(art. 46). The object of the application was to obtain a
decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach
by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5
para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention.
2. The applicant did not reply to the Registrar's enquiry
whether he wished to take part in the proceedings (Rule 33
para. 3 (d)).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio
Mr L.-E. Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality
(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the
President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 5 May 1995, in
the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the
names of the other seven members, namely, Mr F. Matscher,
Mr J. De Meyer, Mrs E. Palm, Mr F. Bigi, Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr P. Jambrek and Mr K. Jungwiert (Article 43 in fine of the
Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).
4. Having noted that the application bringing the case
before the Court had been filed after the expiry of the
time-limit laid down in Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the
Convention, Mr Ryssdal, as President of the Chamber (Rule 21
para. 6), instructed the Registrar to invite the Government to
submit their observations on this point. The Registrar received
these observations on 24 May 1995 and asked the Delegate of the
Commission and the applicant for their comments on them. The
Delegate submitted his comments on 16 June. Mr Morganti did not
reply.
5. On 26 June 1995 the Chamber decided to dispense with a
hearing in the case, having satisfied itself that the conditions
for this derogation from its usual procedure had been met
(Rules 26 and 38).
AS TO THE FACTS
6. Mr Michel Morganti is a prisoner at Melun Prison
(Seine-et-Marne).
On 22 November 1985 he was charged with the attempted
murder of two Spanish Basque refugees, membership of a criminal
organisation, unauthorised possession and transport without a
lawful reason of category IV arms and ammunition and handling
stolen goods. On the same day he was remanded in custody in Pau
Prison (Pyrénées-Atlantiques).
The criminal proceedings lasted from December 1985 to
21 June 1990, when the applicant was sentenced to fifteen years'
imprisonment by the Pyrénées-Atlantiques Assize Court. On
16 October 1991 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on
points of law by the applicant.
7. Between 10 August 1987 (date of the first application)
and 21 June 1990, Mr Morganti submitted fifteen applications for
release, which were all dismissed by the Indictment Division of
the Pau or the Bordeaux Court of Appeal on the grounds that the
length of the proceedings was reasonable in view of the serious
charges against the applicant and the gravity and complexity of
the facts, that public order had been seriously prejudiced in the
region and that there was a risk that he would abscond if
released. The applicant lodged twelve appeals on points of law,
which were all dismissed.
When one of the applications for release was being heard,
on 23 August 1989, the applicant's lawyer requested his immediate
release on the ground that the file did not contain any warrant
ordering his detention. The Pau Indictment Division adjourned
the case to 30 August. On 25 and 28 August the applicant lodged
two appeals on points of law against this decision. On
30 August the Indictment Division refused to order his immediate
release. It found that the missing warrant was in the file and
rejected the argument concerning the identity of the person named
in it, holding that the reference to Albert Morganti rather than
Michel Morganti in the committal warrant of 22 November 1985 had
been due to a clerical error.
The Court of Cassation delivered two judgments on
19 December 1989. In the first, it declared the appeal against
the adjournment decision inadmissible; in the second, it declared
the submission alleging a defect in the committal warrant
inadmissible, but remitted the case to the Bordeaux Indictment
Division, finding of its own motion that the impugned decision
had not contained a statement of the reasons on which it was
based. On 13 February 1990 the Bordeaux Indictment Division
dismissed the application, holding that, in view of the
circumstances, the length of the proceedings had not been
excessive.
The applicant appealed on points of law against the
latter decision, alleging, inter alia, a violation of Article 5
para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention. In a judgment of
25 April 1990 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal devoid
of purpose following the applicant's committal for trial at the
Assize Court on 13 October 1989.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
8. Mr Morganti applied to the Commission on
15 February 1990. He complained of the unlawfulness of his
pre-trial detention ab initio and its subsequent continuation
(Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) of the Convention), of the
length of his pre-trial detention (Article 5 para. 3) (art. 5-3)
and of the fact that the Court of Cassation had not decided the
lawfulness of his detention speedily (Article 5 para. 4)
(art. 5-4).
9. On 18 May 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared
the application (no. 17831/91) admissible as regards the second
complaint and inadmissible as to the remainder. In its report
of 30 November 1994 (Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the
unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5
para. 3 (art. 5-3). The full text of the Commission's opinion
is reproduced as an annex to this judgment (1).
_______________
1. Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will
appear only with the printed version of the judgment
(volume 320-C of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but
a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.
_______________
AS TO THE LAW
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 32 PARA. 1 (art. 32-1) OF THE CONVENTION
10. Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention
provides:
"If the question is not referred to the Court in
accordance with Article 48 (art. 48) of [the] Convention
within a period of three months from the date of the
transmission of the report to the Committee of Ministers,
the Committee of Ministers shall decide ... whether there
has been a violation of the Convention."
11. The Court notes that the French Government referred the
case to it on 13 April 1995, whereas the Commission's report was
sent to the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 1995.
12. The Government maintained that the failure to comply with
the time-limit laid down in Article 32 (art. 32) was "due to the
combined effect of the following two circumstances. Firstly, on
account of the strikes affecting the postal service at that time,
the written request of the Ministry of Justice asking for the
case to be referred to the Court was not received until
11 April 1995. Secondly, there was a delay in forwarding the
application to Strasbourg, as it was sent by fax on 12 April
instead of on the 11th".
13. The Delegate of the Commission left the matter to the
Court's discretion.
14. The Court notes in the first place that the fax
containing the Government's application was received by the
Secretariat of the Commission at 7.33 p.m. on 12 April 1995, and
was communicated to the registry on the following day. It
further notes that the Government did not dispute the fact that
they had exceeded the time they were allowed. It considers that
the explanations put forward do not disclose any special
circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time or
justify its starting to run afresh (see, mutatis mutandis, the
Istituto di Vigilanza v. Italy judgment of 22 September 1993,
Series A no. 265-C, p. 35, para. 14; the Figus Milone v. Italy
judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 265-D, p. 43,
para. 14; and the Goisis v. Italy judgment of 22 September 1993,
Series A no. 265-E, p. 51, para. 19).
It follows that the application bringing the case before
the Court is inadmissible as it is out of time.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Holds that it cannot deal with the merits of the case.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
13 July 1995.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
For the Registrar
Signed: Vincent BERGER
Head of Division
in the registry of the Court