CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2018

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 8 January 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 497/17 Gaetano CHIARELLO against Germany lodged on 29 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of criminal proceedings, in which the applicant was convicted for taking bribes and sentenced to a suspended prison sentence of eight months. The Saarbrucken Regional Court declared as “served” three months of the prison sentence, owing to the delays in the criminal proceedings between 29 January 2013 and 11 February 2015. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34?   In particular, did declaring as “served” three months of the applicant’s suspended sentence of eight months afford sufficient redress to the applicant?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, was the remedy under sections 199, 198 of the Courts Constitution Act ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ) in light of section 199 § 3 of the Courts Constitution Act an effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings?   3.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?