CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 58 November 2003 Schumacher v. Luxembourg - 63286/00 Judgment 25.11.2003 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of investigation ending in time-bar – dies a quem with regard to the period to be examined Facts : In 1991, the applicant was charged with laundering money being the proceeds of drug trafficking. Inquiries were initially made, in particular in the context of two international letters rogatory. On 17 November 2000, the chambre du conseil of the district court declared the prosecution time barred, since no measure of investigation or prosecution had been carried out during the previous three years. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The period to be taken into consideration : The Government contend that it is the date on which the prosecution became time barred by the effect of the three-year limitation period (i.e. three years after the last measure of investigation) that must be taken for the purpose of fixing the date of the end of the period to be taken into consideration ( dies a quem ). The Court takes the later date of the order declaring the prosecution time barred, i.e. 17 November 2000, since the applicant had been awaiting the outcome of his case until that decision was delivered. Appraisal of the period : The investigation lasted nine years. The Court refers to the decision of the chambre du conseil finding that no act had been taken during the last three years of the investigation. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 – The Court awards €6,000 for non-pecuniary harm. It awards a sum for costs and expenses, even though the applicant did not apply for costs or submit any supporting documents.   © 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