CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 février 1993

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                           SECOND CHAMBER                      Application No. 13156/87                             Jørgen Byrn                               against                               Denmark                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 16 February 1993)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    THE PARTIES      (paras. 1 - 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS      (paras. 3 - 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION      (paras. 7 - 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 20 - 23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   APPENDIX I : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . .6   I.    THE PARTIES   1     The present Report, which was drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, concerns the application brought by Jørgen Byrn against Denmark.   2     The Danish Government were represented before the Commission by their Agent, Mr. Tyge Lehmann of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   3     The facts of the case as submitted at the admissibility stage are set out in the Commission's decision as to the admissibility of the application of 1 July 1992, attached hereto as Appendix I. They may be summarised as follows :        Preliminary investigations were instituted against the applicant in February 1984 concerning alleged fraud and/or embezzlement. The proceedings came to an end on 23 May 1990 when the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) acquitted the applicant of all charges brought against him.   4     Before the Commission the applicant complains, under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, of the length of the criminal proceedings.   5     By judgment of the High Court of Eastern Denmark of 25 September 1992 the applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of DKK 350,000 plus interest and costs. As regards the compensation awarded in respect of pain, suffering and inconveniences as well as disturbance of position and circumstances the High Court stated inter alia :   (Translation)        "... on his arrest Jørgen Byrn was charged with      embezzlement which was a particularly serious and critical      charge for him as a lawyer. The High Court moreover refers      to the length of the investigation and the criminal      proceedings. The time spent on the hearing of the case      cannot be regarded as compatible with the demand for a fair      hearing within a reasonable time. However, the fact that      Jørgen Byrn's own participation in the process to some      extent has caused the case to take longer than usual for      similar cases should not be disregarded. The reason for      many of the problems pointed out by Jørgen Byrn in the      action for damages seems to be connected with his opinion      that he has been and still is subject to systematic      persecution in particular by authorities and colleagues      within the legal profession, the police, the Prosecution      and the courts of law. This has also caused the hearing of      this case by the High Court to take seven court days.      Jørgen Byrn's notion of this persecution, as stated by a      witness in this action, did not arise after the      commencement of proceedings in this case in February 1984,      but has presumably been intensified as a result of this in      which connection the lengthy proceedings have clearly had      an unfavourable influence. In addition, when taking into      consideration the general influence of the criminal      proceedings on Jørgen Byrn's business situation and      overall conditions of life, the Court finds that the      damages should be increased from the amount of DKK 100,000      as fixed by the City Court to DKK 300,000."   6     The Government submit, which is contested by the applicant, that in view of the above judgment the applicant cannot any longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention.   III.PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   7     The application was introduced on 30 June 1987 and registered on 12 August 1987.   8     On 2 October 1989 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in so far as it related to the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings.   9     The Government's observations were submitted on 8 December 1989 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 29 January 1990.   10    On 16 February 1990 the Commission decided not to grant legal aid to the applicant.   11    On 7 September 1990 the Commission decided to adjourn the further examination of the case pending the outcome of the compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant following his acquittal.   12    On 8 December 1990 the Commission decided to refer the application to a Chamber.   13    On 10 April 1991 the Commission (Second Chamber), confirmed the adjournment of the case pending the outcome of the compensation proceedings instituted following the applicant's acquittal.   14    On 1 July 1992 the Commission decided to continue its examination of the case and declared admissible the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   15    On 10 July 1992 the text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was communicated to the parties who were invited to submit any additional observations or further evidence which they wished to put before the Commission.   16    By letter of 29 September 1992 the respondent Government informed the Commission of the judgment of the High Court of Eastern Denmark of 25 September 1992.   17    By letter of 3 December 1992 the respondent Government informed the Commission that a total amount of DKK 469,262.49 was placed at the applicant's disposal on 30 October 1992. The amount was drawn from the account in question on 3 November 1992.   18    On 16 February 1993 the Commission decided to strike the present application off its list of cases, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, 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                     F. MARTINEZ                     J.-C. GEUS   19    It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the parties for information and to publish it.   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   20    According to the constant case-law of the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights an applicant who obtains adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the Convention cannot, or cannot any longer, claim to be a "victim" of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention (cf. for example No. 9320/81, Dec. 15.3.84, D.R. 36 p. 24, No. 10259/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 170, No. 12719/87, Dec. 3.5.88, D.R. 56 p. 237 and Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).   21    From its decision on admissibility the Commission recalls that whereas the applicant was relieved, by his unconditional acquittal, of any detrimental effects in respect of his complaint of an unfair trial, his acquittal was not directly connected with the length of the proceedings and could not therefore be considered as a direct or indirect recognition of a violation of Article 6 in this respect, or as a reparation for the damage allegedly caused thereby. Furthermore, the Commission found that, although the compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant in accordance with Chapter 93a of the Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) would not in the circumstances prevent the Commission from examining this complaint on the merits, their outcome might nevertheless affect the applicant's status as a "victim".   22    In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant obtained a total of DKK 469,262.49 plus costs in compensation inter alia for pain, suffering and inconveniences as well as disturbance of position and circumstances caused by the criminal proceedings against him. The High Court stressed in its judgment of 25 September 1992 that the charges were particularly serious for the applicant being a lawyer and found that the "time spent on the hearing of the case cannot be regarded as compatible with the demand for a fair hearing within a reasonable time".   23    In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant obtained adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings, this being the only issue still pending before it. It concludes, therefore, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this application, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. It further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination thereof.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION NO. 13156/87 OFF ITS LIST OF CASES;        ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;        DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers      for information, to send it also to the parties and to publish      it.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                               (S. TRECHSEL)