CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        Application No. 14773/89                       by U.L.                       against the Federal Republic of Germany           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS              Mr. K. ROGGE,   Secretary to the Second Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 3 January 1989 by U.L. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 15 March 1989 under file No. 14773/89;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1931 and living in St. Augustin, near Bonn.   He is represented by Prof. G. Laule, a lawyer in Frankfurt.         It follows from the parties' submissions that the applicant, who is the chief representative of the treasurer of the Christian Democratic Party (Christlich-Demokratische Union, hereafter referred to as CDU), was involved in financial transactions serving to finance the CDU.   Since about 1976 these transactions have been investigated as to whether they involved tax evasion or other offences.   In connection with these investigations, which were first directed against the representatives of the European Management Consulting Company (Europäische Unternehmensberatungsanstalt), the applicant was heard on 10 March 1977 as a witness.   Pointing out that he was responsible for all financial matters of the CDU, the applicant stated that he considered himself to be concerned by the investigations. Thereupon he was likewise treated as a suspect (Beschuldigter).         On 25 April 1988, when the Public Prosecutor (Staatsanwalt- schaft) was still carrying out investigations, the applicant requested that the proceedings be discontinued, arguing that they exceeded a reasonable time.   This request was rejected on 16 May 1988 by the Public Prosecutor in Bonn on the following grounds:         The proceedings, No. 40 JS 183/76, against representatives of the European Management Consulting Company had been extended to the applicant.   On 30 December 1980 the applicant had been informed of the discontinuation of these proceedings.         Meanwhile other investigation proceedings had been instituted by the Public Prosecutor in Düsseldorf.   They were directed against a businessman, L., who had made a donation to the CDU.   He was suspected of tax evasion.   Those proceedings were discontinued on 23 April 1981.         Mid-1981 the Public Prosecutor in Bonn requested the Düsseldorf Public Prosecutor to transmit the files concerning the discontinued proceedings against L.   In view of further discoveries the Bonn Public Prosecutor then decided on 31 August 1981 to reopen the proceedings against L. and to open new proceedings against the applicant.         On 17 February 1981 the applicant was heard as a witness in investigation proceedings against a former secretary of the Liberal Party (FDP) who was suspected of attempted blackmail.         The Public Prosecutor saw no connection between the previous discontinued proceedings against the applicant and the investigation proceedings started on 31 August 1981.   The previous proceedings related to dealings with fictitious expert opinions, while the proceedings instituted against the applicant on 31 August 1981 concerned the applicant's involvement in donation payments made via specific associations, in particular one called "Staatsbürgerliche Vereinigung".         Therefore the Public Prosecutor concluded that the relevant period (under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) began on 31 August 1981 and lasted six years and eight months and not, as the applicant had submitted, some twelve years.   That period was not unreasonably long in view of the difficulty and complexity of the matter.   Some 450 business companies' premises had to be searched and money transfers to     Switzerland and their camouflaged re-transfer had to be investigated. As the corresponding bank documents could not be found, the flow of the money in question had to be traced on the basis of voluminous documentary evidence seized during the searches.         The Public Prosecutor further pointed out that prosecution would become time-barred on 29 June 1991.   There was no reason to discontinue the proceedings and their length could be taken into account as a mitigating factor if a sentence was imposed.         The applicant's appeal to the Hamm Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) was dismissed on 23 June 1988 as being inadmissible.          A subsequent constitutional complaint was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 13 October 1988 as being partly inadmissible and partly clearly ill-founded.   The Court stated that the appellate court's decision did not disclose any appearance of arbitrariness.   The continued investigation proceedings could not be the subject of a constitutional complaint as they only served the preparation of a decision.   The Court noted that the length of the proceedings constituted an important burden on the applicant, and expressed its hope that the Public Prosecutor would expedite them. The Court furthermore stated that the prejudice caused to the applicant was only of a temporary nature and could subsequently be remedied as the length of the proceedings had to be taken into account by the criminal courts when fixing the sentence.   On the other hand the applicant would be rehabilitated if acquitted.   Under certain circumstances he might then also claim compensation under the Act on Compensation in Criminal Matters (StrEG) or under tort law (Amtshaftung).         It follows from the applicant's submissions that, as he was not formally informed about the institution of the proceedings which began on 31 August 1981, he submitted an information against himself (Selbstanzeige) some days later.   At the request of the applicant and others who considered themselves concerned the state of these proceedings was first discussed at a meeting with representatives of the Public Prosecutor on 17 February and 20 April 1983.   On 20-22 April 1983 the offices of the CDU's Treasury were searched.   The applicant was heard by two members of the Public Prosecutor's Office on 7 July 1986.         The applicant's trial opened before the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Düsseldorf on 14 February 1990.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant has submitted that investigation measures against him were taken by the Public Prosecutor from mid-1976 or, at the latest, from March 1977, considering that all investigations relating to the suspected illegality of the financing of the CDU concerned the same subject-matter.   Therefore it was, in his opinion, not justified to make a distinction between different complexes and different investigation proceedings for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings.   He has pointed out that his name was repeatedly mentioned in press reports on the matter which is known as the "donation scandal" (Spendenaffäre).   He has alleged that the investigation proceedings negatively affected his personal career in a severe manner, and violated Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in view of their unreasonable duration.       PROCEEDINGS         The application was introduced on 3 January and registered on 5 March 1989.         On 5 September 1989 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit before 24 November 1989 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   At the Government's request, the time-limit was subsequently extended until 8 January 1990.         The Government submitted their observations on 10 January 1990, and the applicant was invited to submit observations in reply before 16 March 1990.   On 14 March 1990 the applicant submitted observations in reply to the Government's observations.         On 7 December 1990 the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the matter pending the outcome of the trial.         On 8 May 1991 the trial court discontinued the proceedings (Einstellung des Verfahrens).         By letter of 5 February 1992 the applicant's counsel withdrew the application.     FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION         The criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued and he subsequently stated that he wished to withdraw the application.         Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the petition.   Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine, the Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.     For these reasons the Commission unanimously           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber                 (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)