CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 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 }   Communicated on 24 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 71591/17 Oskar GRÖNING against Germany lodged on 26 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who died after having filed the present application and whose sons have declared to be willing to continue the proceedings, was a member of a unit of the SS, which contributed to the organisation and functioning of the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1944. In 1977 the public prosecutor’s office instigated criminal investigations against him. In 1978 it questioned him as an accused. In 1985 the investigations were discontinued. The applicant was not officially notified of this decision. After the investigations had been resumed in 2013, the Regional Court, in 2015, convicted the applicant on 300.000 counts of aiding and abetting murder to a prison term of four years. With regard to the applicant’s objection regarding the length of the criminal proceedings, it established that the time between 1985 and 2013 was not to be taken into account since the public prosecutor had discontinued the investigations. Appeals to the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court were to no avail. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unreasonably long since they had not been discontinued properly and that he had not received any compensation. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the compensation claim for undue delay under Section 199 § 1 of the Courts Constitution Act, taking particular account of Section 199 § 3 (2) of the Courts Constitution Act, an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision? 2.     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? In particular, what was the impact of the decision to discontinue the investigations in 1985?