CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 69720/11 Gernot KNOESS against Malta lodged on 2 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Gernot Knoess, is a German national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Malta (since 2006). He is the director of M. Architecture Ltd a company based in Malta. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Background of the case On 20 September 2006 the Attorney General requested the Criminal Court to order an investigation in respect of, C., W., MMI and the applicant and his company for money laundering. By a decision of 22 September 2006, having considered that there had been reasonable suspicion that they were guilty of money laundering (Article 3 of Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta), the Criminal Court ordered i) that the relevant banks and entities give Police Inspector V access to all the relevant property, including monies, accounts, safety deposit boxes, gold and jewels belonging to the suspects and to related correspondence; ii) the attachment of such property and documents. It further prohibited the suspects from transferring or disposing of any movable or immovable property. The relevant notification was ordered. The applicant was notified about the investigation and attachment order on 29 September 2006. Notice was given in Maltese and a request for translation into English or German was refused. Ultimately, a translation was handed over on an unspecified date in 2007. As a result, the applicant’s property and funds and those of his company were attached in the hands of a third party. On 17 November 2006 the applicant was called in for a statement. He was not provided with a lawyer but was assisted by an interpreter paid by the applicant himself. On 30 January 2007 the applicant, in his name and on behalf of his company, made a request for the release of the property. The Attorney General responded that the investigation was still underway; however given its complexity and the use of foreign documents it was taking longer. By a decree of 6 February 2007 the Criminal Court rejected the request. The applicant, in his name and on behalf of his company, filed another request on 23 February 2007 for the release of the property. He argued, inter alia , that given the delay in the investigation his company had suffered irreparable damage. The Attorney General responded that a number of the applicant and his company’s bank accounts had been released. By a decree of 21 June 2007 the Criminal Court rejected the request. On 14 December 2007 the applicant, in his name and on behalf of his company, filed another request for the release of the property. The Attorney General objected. By a decree of 19 December 2007 the Criminal Court considered that the investigation and attachment order in connection with the two outstanding accounts were still necessary for the purpose of the investigation. It thus rejected the request. At the time of the introduction of the application some of the property was still attached in the hands of a third party. 2. Constitutional redress proceedings On 28 September 2010 the applicant instituted Constitutional redress proceedings. He complained under Article 6 about the length of the investigation against him. He further invoked Article 6 in so far as the procedure in the investigation stage had not been regular, in that the applicant had not been provided with an interpreter and had not been notified of one of the hearings. Under Article 6 § 2 he complained that the attachment order had been arbitrary and disproportionate and had denied him the presumption of innocence. Moreover, there had been no reasonable suspicion against him. He further complained under Article 8 that the suspicions against him had been the result of unauthorised telephone tapping and that the freezing of his funds had severely affected his private and family life unreasonably. Lastly, he invoked Article 1 of Protocol No.1 in relation to the attachment order. The first hearing on 7 October 2010 was adjourned. A second hearing was held on 26 October 2010 during which the registrar could not find the file and the Police Inspector did not appear. The case was adjourned sine die . In August 2012 these proceedings were still pending at first-instance. 3. Criminal proceedings On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with money laundering and summoned to appear in court. At the first hearing on 23   November   2011, the public prosecutor declared that all the evidence had not been collected. A second hearing took place on 8 February 2012 at which the applicant was served with a summons containing the charges. No evidence was presented. On 2 May 2012 another hearing took place at which no evidence was presented. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings and the constitutional redress proceedings, the latter being ineffective. Invoking Article 6 § 3 (a) he complains that he was not informed in a language he understood and in detail of the accusations against him. Under Article 8 the applicant complains that the attachment of his property in the hands of a third party which was in place for more than five years had not been in accordance with the law and did not allow him enough money to live decently (notwithstanding that the law provides otherwise). In a letter of 15 February 2012 the applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 that he was being accused without any evidence. He further considered that despite the summons served on him on 8 February 2012 he was still not informed in detail of the charges against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (a). In a letter of 28 May 2012 the applicant further complained that the repercussions this situation was creating for his business (due to publicity) amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 and a violation of Articles 6 § 2, 8 and 12 of the Convention in so far as he could not live a quiet life with his wife and have children. In a letter of 6 August 2012 the applicant invoked Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Particularly in view of the length of the proceedings before the constitutional jurisdictions, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 6 § 1 in relation to the length of the criminal proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   195 and 204-207, ECHR 2006 ‑ V, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no.   31333/06, 10 September 2010)?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings (including the investigation) in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?