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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 Soto Sanchez v. Spain - 66990/01 Judgment 25.11.2003 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Remedy for complaining of length of completed constitutional proceedings (Article   292 of the Law on the Organisation of the Courts): preliminary objection dismissed Facts : In June 1993 the Audiencia Nacional found the applicant guilty of concealment of drug trafficking, of a financial offence and of forging private documents, and imposed a prison sentence of four years and two months, as well as fines.   The applicant appealed on a point of law. In October 1994, the Supreme Court held that the applicant was guilty of the offence of concealment of drug trafficking, with the aggravating circumstance of belonging to an organised group; it increased the penalty to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered the applicant to pay a fine.   In November 1994 the applicant lodged an application for the protection of fundamental human rights (an amparo appeal) before the Constitutional Court.   In May 1995, the appeal was declared admissible, then various procedural acts were carried out until June 1996. In July 1995 and December 1997, the Court dismissed the applicant’s requests to suspend enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court.   On three occasions the applicant requested early examination of his appeal.   On 16 May 2000, the Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo appeal in part and set aside in part the judgment of the Supreme Court.   The case having been referred back to the Supreme Court, the latter increased the custodial sentence to seven years. The applicant had complained of the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Law : Article 35 § 1 – The Government objected that the available domestic remedies were not exhausted, contending that the applicant had failed to use the legal procedure provided for in Article 292 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary. The Court held that it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to have recourse to this remedy. He had asked the Constitutional Court on three different occasions for early examination of his amparo appeal and had never received a reply, whereas if the court had replied the applicant could quite easily have acted on the basis of the said Article 292. Moreover, the Government had not demonstrated the effectiveness of the remedy to which it referred, and had produced no examples of cases in which a person in a similar situation had secured just satisfaction for excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The objection was therefore dismissed (see, a contrario , the decision in the case of Caldas Ramirez de Arellano , 28.1.2003). Article 6 § 1 – The proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted a total five years and over five months. The Government produced no specific evidence to justify this lapse of time, and the Court notes the importance of the issue at stake for the applicant. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded a specific sum in compensation for the non-material damage sustained, with an additional amount for costs and expenses, even though the applicant had failed to produce the requisite 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