CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2025

.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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 February 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 26903/24 and 26909/24 Paweł ŚWIĘTOCHOWSKI and Krzysztof ŚWIĘTOCHOWSKI against Liechtenstein lodged on 30 August 2024 communicated on 4 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the length of a criminal investigation against both applicants, which was opened on 28 December 2016 based on a suspicion of money laundering. The applicants submitted that this investigation against them was still ongoing at the time when they lodged the present applications with the Court. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal investigation against them. They further allege that they do not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings at issue, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was the remedy provided for in Article 49a of the Court Organisation Act an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal investigation against them (in respect of the requirements of an effective remedy regarding such complaint, see, inter alia , Bekerman v. Liechtenstein , no. 34459/10, § 67, 3 September 2015, and Von Hoffen v. Liechtenstein , no. 5010/04, § 39, 27 July 2006)? Specifically, was this remedy capable of accelerating the proceedings, and more specifically the investigation, against the applicants? (b)     Was the remedy provided for in Article 239 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings against them? Are there any reasons which could justify reaching a conclusion as to the effectiveness of that remedy in respect of the applicants’ complaint about the length of the criminal investigation against them which differs from the conclusion which the Court reached in Von Hoffen (cited above, § 40)? (c)     Did the applicants have at their disposal any other remedy under domestic law which was effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings against them?   2.     Having regard to the close affinity between Article 13 and Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Von Hoffen , cited above, §   39), did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings at issue, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?