CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 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 } .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 Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.) - 27156/02 Decision 13.11.2003 [Section IV] Article 34 Victim Reduction of sentence on the basis of finding by national judge of violation of Article   6 § 1: inadmissible The applicant was the subject of a judicial investigation for corruption which lasted more than nine years. Before the trial court, the applicant raised an objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the reasonable time provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been exceeded. The Luxembourg criminal court applied the criteria established by the Convention organs and held that the time which had elapsed between the beginning of the investigation and the hearing before it had exceeded the reasonable time provided for in Article 6. The court found the applicant guilty of corruption. The applicant faced the most severe penalty, which could be one year’s imprisonment and a fine of LUF 100,000. However, the court considered that, because the reasonable time had been exceeded, it was appropriate to impose a lighter penalty. It further referred to the fact that the applicant had no previous convictions and decided to impose a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, which was suspended in full, and, in the light of the applicant’s financial circumstances, a fine of €2.500. The court also decided that, because the reasonable time had been exceeded, the applicant would not be deprived of his civil and political rights, as provided for in the Criminal Code. Before the Court, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The national judges decided, with reference to the fact that the reasonable period within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 had been exceeded, that the applicant should be given a lighter penalty and sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended in full, and did not deprive him of his civil and political rights, as provided for in the Criminal Code. The Court considers that the national authorities expressly recognised, and then made reparation for, the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant cannot therefore claim to be the victim of a violation of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time.   © 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