Police Custody: Notification of Facts Without Details of Involvement – What the Court of Cassation Has Ruled

Imagine: you are the owner of a flat in Saint-Priest, in the Lyon suburbs. A tenant accuses you of having concealed latent defects and files a complaint. The gendarmes summon you and place you in police custody. You are notified of the facts: “fraud”, alleged date and place. But you do not know whether you are accused of lying about the condition of the roof or of falsifying the surveys. You are deprived of your liberty without knowing precisely what you are accused of. Is this legal? This is exactly the question put to the Court of Cassation in this case.

The question that every owner, tenant or professional faced with police custody asks themselves: do I have the right to know, from the moment of my arrest, all the details of what I am accused of? The answer is not as simple as one might think. The European Convention on Human Rights requires that the arrested person be informed of the reasons for their deprivation of liberty. But how far must this information go?

The decision of 4 October 2016 of the Court of Cassation provides a clear answer: the provisions of Article 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which require that the person in police custody be notified of the alleged legal classification, date and place of the offence, are compatible with the European Convention. However, the details of their involvement (for example, their precise role in the facts) do not have to be communicated at the start of police custody, but only when the court rules on the merits. This decision confirms a practice that is already established, but that many people are unaware of.

The facts: a story like those that happen every day

Mr X, a lawyer and agrégé professor of law (for simplicity, let's call him Maître G.), practised in Lyon. In 2014, he was suspected of having participated in a real estate fraud concerning a sale in Saint-Priest. On 12 March, he was arrested at his office and placed in police custody. The notification report stated: “you are suspected of having committed fraud, on 10 January 2014, in Saint-Priest.” Nothing more. Maître G. considered this notification insufficient: he wanted to know whether he was accused of having drafted a fraudulent deed, of having advised a client, or of having himself received funds. He invoked Article 5, § 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that any arrested person be informed of the reasons for their arrest.

The case proceeded. Maître G. was charged, tried, and then acquitted at first instance. But he challenged the lawfulness of the police custody before the investigating chamber of the Lyon Court of Appeal. He argued that the notification of only the legal classification, date and place did not respect his right to be informed immediately of the “reasons” for his deprivation of liberty. The investigating chamber rejected his argument. He then appealed to the Court of Cassation.

Before the Court of Cassation, Maître G. added an argument based on EU Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This Directive provides that arrested persons must receive detailed information about the accusation, including the nature of their involvement. However, the Directive also specifies that this information must be communicated “at the latest when the court is called upon to rule on the merits of the accusation”, not necessarily at the time of arrest. The Court of Cassation therefore had to decide: was the initial notification sufficient?

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 4 October 2016, dismissed Maître G.'s appeal. It relied on two texts: Article 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which requires notification of the “legal classification, date and place alleged of the offence”) and Article 5, § 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights (which requires that the arrested person be informed of the “reasons for his arrest”). The Court considered that these two texts are compatible. In other words, notifying the legal classification, date and place is sufficient to satisfy the obligation to inform of the reasons for the arrest. Why? Because the sole purpose of Article 5, § 2, is to allow the person to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court. Knowing the precise framework of the offence (fraud, theft, etc.) and the date and place is sufficient to initiate such a challenge. However, the details of the involvement (for example, “you signed a false document”) are not necessary at this stage.

The Court also relied on Directive 2012/13/EU, transposed by the Law of 27 May 2014. This Directive, in its Article 6, provides that detailed information about the accusation, including the nature of the involvement, must be communicated “at the latest when the court is called upon to rule on the merits of the accusation”. The Court deduced that the transposition by Article 63-1 is complete: the initial notification is summary, but more detailed information will be provided later, in particular at the hearing. Therefore, this is not a violation of the right to information.

This reasoning confirms consistent case law: the notification in police custody does not have to be exhaustive. What few people know is that this decision is part of a logic of procedural efficiency: at the initial stage of the investigation, the investigators may not yet know all the details of the person's involvement. Requiring immediate detailed information would be unrealistic. The Court of Cassation therefore validates a pragmatic approach.

What this changes for you — concretely

If you are a landlord in Saint-Priest and are placed in police custody on suspicion of housing benefit fraud, you will receive a notification like: “you are suspected of fraud, on [date], in Saint-Priest”. You will not have the details of your involvement (for example, “you inflated the rent receipts”). Is this a problem? Yes, because you will not be able to prepare your defence in detail. But the law considers that this is sufficient to challenge the lawfulness of your police custody. You can ask a lawyer to obtain more details later.

For a tenant accused of damage: the notification will be summary. You will know that you are accused of “voluntary damage” on a certain date, at a certain address, but not whether you are accused of having knocked a hole in the wall or broken a window. It is only during the investigation that you will obtain details.

For a real estate professional (estate agent, notary): if you are suspected of breach of trust, the notification will indicate the broad outline. Do not expect a detailed account of the facts from the outset. undefined, I have come across cases where estate agents, placed in police custody for misappropriation of funds, were very destabilised by the vagueness of the notification. But this decision confirms that it is lawful.

However, be careful: if the notification is too vague, for example “offence committed in Lyon” without a precise date, you could challenge it. The legal classification must be precise (theft, fraud, etc.), as must the date and place. If this is not the case, your lawyer can invoke nullity.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Do not panic during the notification: listen carefully to what is said to you. Note the exact terms. If the notification seems too vague, ask for clarification on the police custody record. The judicial police officer may be required to supplement it.
• Call a lawyer immediately: as soon as you are informed of your placement in police custody, ask for a lawyer's assistance. The lawyer will be able to obtain additional information about the nature of your involvement during their confidential interview.
• Keep all documents: the notification report, any incident reports, letters. This will allow you, if necessary, to later challenge the lawfulness of the procedure.
• Know your rights: even if the notification is summary, you have the right to remain silent or to make statements. Choose the strategy with your lawyer. Do not be intimidated by the vagueness of the accusations.

Further information: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a series of judgments of the Court of Cassation and the European Court of Human Rights. For example, in the case Murray v. United Kingdom (1996), the ECtHR held that Article 5, § 2, requires that the person be informed of the reasons for their arrest “in simple, accessible and sufficiently detailed language”. However, the Court specified that the level of detail may vary depending on the circumstances. In 2015, the ECtHR ruled in Baranowski v. Poland that a vague notification (e.g., “suspicion of theft”) was insufficient. The Court of Cassation's 2016 decision is therefore consistent: it requires a precise legal classification, but not details of involvement.

In France, the jurisprudential trend is towards flexibility for investigators at the initial stage. However, note: since 2016, Directive 2012/13 has been strengthened by Directive 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence. It is possible that the case law will evolve towards a requirement for more precise information from the start of police custody. For now, the position of the Court of Cassation remains firm.

Frequently asked questions

In police custody, what exactly must I be informed of? You must be notified of the legal classification (the name of the offence: theft, fraud, etc.), the alleged date and place. There is no need to detail your involvement.

Can I challenge police custody if the notification is too vague? Yes, if the legal classification is absent or if the date and place are too imprecise. For example, “offence in Saint-Priest” without a precise date can be challenged.

What are the time limits for challenging the lawfulness of police custody? You must raise the issue as soon as possible, ideally before the investigating judge or the investigating chamber. After a certain time, the nullity may be waived.

Does this decision also apply to police custody for property offences? Yes, it applies to all offences. Whether you are an owner, tenant or professional, the rules are the same.

What should I do if I am accused of an offence I did not commit? Remain silent, ask for a lawyer and do not sign anything without advice. The summary notification does not prejudge your guilt.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →