CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 19 December 2013 and 2 December 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33060/10 Helmut BLUM against Austria lodged on 11 June 2010     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTION     1.     In its judgment of 20 May 2014, the Supreme Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with respect to the overall length of the proceedings, and mitigated the fine imposed to EUR   500. Does this judgment have an impact on the applicant’s victim status concerning his complaint of the length of the proceedings?