CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 June 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28805/21 Achilleos NEOPHYTOU and Stefanos NEOPHYTOU against the United Kingdom lodged on 1 June 2021 communicated on 23 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2015, the applicants were convicted in the Crown Court of conspiring to manage a brothel. The prosecution applied for a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, the duration of the confiscation proceedings was impacted by the time estimates afforded for the confiscation hearing; by the number of reading days allocated to the trial judge to draft his ruling; and by the need to adjourn the proceedings on certain occasions to enable expert witnesses to amend mistakes in their reports. A confiscation order of over GBP 3,000,000 was imposed on the applicants on 17   January 2021. On 9 February 2021, the Court of Appeal denied the applicants permission to appeal. The applicants were subsequently imprisoned for defaulting on the confiscation order and their appeal against this decision was unsuccessful. They complain under Article 6 that the confiscation proceedings violated their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES In view of all the surrounding circumstances, was the length of the confiscation proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( see Bullen and Soneji v. the United Kingdom , no. 3383/06, 8 January 2009 and Minshall v. the United Kingdom , no.   7350/06, 20 December 2011)?