CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 août 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77 July-August 2005 Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania - 77517/01 Judgment 4.8.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Calculation of length of proceedings – resumption of criminal proceedings after charges had been dismissed: violation   Facts : The applicants having been arrested and prosecuted, the prosecutor found that there was no case to answer. A year and a half later the prosecution service, in the exercise of its discretionary powers, ordered that the proceedings be reopened, on the basis that the decision had contradicted some of the evidence in the case file and that the initial investigation had been incomplete. The proceedings were closed six years later. Law : Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) – While the criminal proceedings against the applicants comprised two distinct phases, they constituted a single period for the purposes of the reasonable-time requirement. The decision that there was no case to answer could not be regarded as having brought the proceedings against the applicants to a close, given that it did not constitute a final domestic decision, since the prosecution service had the power to set aside a decision that there was no case to answer and reopen criminal proceedings without being subject to any time-limit. Furthermore, unlike in Withey v. the United Kingdom (ECHR 2003-X), the prosecution service had been able to reopen the criminal proceedings without being obliged to seek authorisation from any domestic court. Nor had the Government done anything to demonstrate that the resumption of criminal proceedings closed by order of the prosecutor was an exceptional occurrence. The Court also took account of the fact that Romanian prosecutors, since they acted as members of the Prosecutor-General's Department, did not satisfy the requirement of independence from the executive ( Pantea v. Romania, n° 33343/96, §§ 238-239, ECHR 2003-VI). Finally, the reopening of the proceedings had been ordered as the result of omissions on the part of the authorities which, in so far as they were not attributable to the applicants, should not have placed them at a disadvantage. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes