CCPR/C/122/D/3090/2017
CCPR/C/122/D/3091/2017
The Minister did not share the author’s view that his pretrial detention had taken place in
exceptional circumstances and that it had entailed abnormal damages. The Minister pointed
out that the author had been held in pretrial detention in Luxembourg from 30 June 1997 in
response to an extradition request from France and that he had then been convicted in
France. The ruling had offered the author the possibility of filing a claim against the State,
within three months, before the district courts, but he had failed to do so.
2.10 On 4 January 2013, the author wrote a letter to the Luxembourg Minister of Justice
complaining that there was no procedure whereby the State of Luxembourg could be
compelled to request a State to which it has granted extradition and a request for arrest
pending extradition to provide compensation for arbitrary detention in its territory pursuant
to article 9 of the Covenant. According to the author, the letter has remained unanswered to
date.4
France (communication No. 3091/2017)
2.11 On 4 November 1997, the author was taken to the border and presented to a
prosecutor who was authorized solely to verify his identity before incarcerating him in
Metz remand prison. On 7 November 1997, the author was transferred to Loos-lès-Lille
remand prison. On 10 November 1997, Lille Regional Court confirmed the arrest warrant
of 16 April 1996 and ordered the continued detention of the author. On 28 November 1997,
however, the Douai Court of Appeal, noting that the author had no criminal record and had
afforded evidence of a fixed abode and a stable family situation, concluded that there were
adequate guarantees of his appearance before the courts and ordered his release.
2.12 On 16 October 1998, the Lille Criminal Court convicted the author of having
deceived various people and sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment. On 20 December
2001, the Douai Court of Appeal acquitted the author on seven counts, but convicted him of
attempted fraud and sentenced him to a six-month suspended term of imprisonment. The
court also ruled that it was for the author to raise the plea alleging the unlawfulness of the
request for remand detention pending extradition and declared the plea inadmissible. In
addition, the court ruled that the excessive duration of proceedings could not render them
void. Lastly, the court found that the author had waived — irrevocably and even though he
was assisted by counsel — the principle of speciality enshrined in article 66 (1) of the
Schengen Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the
Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of
Germany and the French Republic, on the gradual abolition of checks at their common
borders of 19 June 1990, the application of which the French courts are not required to
monitor with regard to the requested State. On 27 November 2002, the Court of Cassation
dismissed the author’s appeal against the judgment of 20 December 2001.
2.13 On 3 November 2003, the Douai Court of Appeal dismissed the author’s application
for compensation for the damages suffered as a result of his detention from 30 June 1997 to
28 November 1997, on the grounds that he had been convicted of offences in respect of
which an arrest warrant had been issued and executed and that he had not been discharged. 5
On 11 June 2004, the National Commission on Compensation for Detention dismissed the
author’s appeal. It considered that, since the author had been convicted of attempted fraud,
an offence explicitly mentioned in the arrest warrant and that could be invoked to justify the
pretrial detention, the lawfulness of the detention was of little importance.
2.14 On 22 October 2008, the Paris Regional Court dismissed the author’s application for
compensation for the damage caused by the faulty operation of the judicial system, in
particular the fact that the decision concerning his detention was taken more than 72 hours
after his arrival at the remand prison following his extradition, whereas article 133 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure sets a 24-hour time limit. On 23 March 2010, the Paris Court
4
5
GE.18-10755
The author considers that the absence of a reply amounts to rejection and confirms that there are no
legal provisions in Luxembourg requiring a requesting State to provide compensation for an arbitrary
request for detention pending extradition, in accordance with article 9 (5) of the Covenant.
According to articles 149 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, full compensation for the moral
and material damage suffered is awarded, upon request, to a person whose term of remand in custody
is ended by a decision to terminate the proceedings, a discharge decision or a final acquittal decision.
3