Background
M. [B] [W] [U] was placed in pretrial detention on October 19, 2023, while under formal investigation for organized armed robbery and participation in a criminal conspiracy, allegedly as a repeat offender. On October 17, 2025, the liberty and detention judge extended his detention for six months beginning October 19, 2025. The investigating judge subsequently ordered him to stand trial before the assize court.
On April 30, 2026, the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal’s Investigation Chamber reversed the committal order and returned the case to the investigating judge for further investigation. M. [U] applied for release on May 11. The liberty and detention judge denied the application on May 28, and the Investigation Chamber affirmed. M. [U] appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that his detention had continued after the prior detention order expired without a new extension order.
The Court’s Holding
The Criminal Chamber dismissed the appeal but modified its earlier approach to detention following reversal of a committal order. It held that Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires judicial intervention within a short period whenever the law permits detention to continue beyond the duration initially authorized. In a felony case, that period may not exceed three months from the expiration of the detention authority that was in force when the committal order was issued.
The Court therefore retreated from its 2018 precedent insofar as that precedent allowed an expired detention authority to continue automatically for as long as six months without judicial intervention. Continued detention is Convention-compliant only if the competent court—on its own initiative or when deciding a release application—reviews the necessity of detention within three months. Here, the liberty and detention judge conducted that review on May 28, 2026, less than three months after the Court identified April 19, 2026, as the expiration date. The detention was therefore lawful, and the appeal was rejected.
The Court also rejected M. [U]’s constitutional argument as moot because, in a separate ruling issued the same day, it had declined to refer his priority constitutional question concerning Article 145-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Constitutional Council.
Key Takeaways
- Reversal of a committal order and return of the case to the investigating judge may permit pretrial detention to continue, but not for up to six months without judicial review.
- In felony proceedings, the competent court must review the necessity of continued detention within three months after the detention authority in force at the time of committal expires.
- If the liberty and detention judge is seized after the Investigation Chamber’s reversal has become final, that judge is competent to conduct the review; otherwise, jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Investigation Chamber.
Why It Matters
The ruling tightens judicial control over pretrial detention after an appellate court reverses a committal order. Although the Court upheld the detention in this case, it expressly limited its earlier rule permitting an automatic extension of up to six months and required an effective judicial necessity review within three months.
The decision also makes clear that the detainee’s ability to seek release, or a court’s general power to terminate detention, cannot by itself satisfy Article 5. The required safeguard is an actual, timely judicial ruling on whether continued detention remains necessary.