CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 28 May 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11990/15 Christakis FOUTAS ARISTIDOU against Cyprus lodged on 4 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant who, on 25 June 2014, was found guilty by the District Court of Limassol of indecent assault and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment (case no. 9886/11). His appeal (no. 180/2014) was dismissed on 3 October 2014 by the Supreme Court which also held that there had been no violation of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article   30 of the Constitution. The applicant complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings before the District Court of Limassol which lasted just over three years as well as a delay of more than fifteen months on the part of the authorities in bringing proceedings against him following the conclusion of the investigation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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 this connection, bearing in mind the scope of the applicant’s complaint, which is the period to be taken into account in order to assess the reasonableness of the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case?