CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 2002

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 40 March 2002 Etcheveste and Bidart v. France - 44797/98 and 44798/98 Judgment 21.3.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Starting point of period to be taken into account in assessing the reasonableness of the length of criminal proceedings Facts : The two applicants were involved in a shoot-out for which responsibility was claimed by the Basque separatist group, Iparretarrak, of which they were members. On 1   September   1983 a warrant was issued for the first applicant’s arrest. As he had fled, the arrest warrant was never executed. On 26 October 1984 a warrant was issued for the second applicant’s arrest. That warrant was never executed either because the second applicant could not be found. In a judgment of 19 August 1987 the Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal charged the applicants and committed them for trial at the Assize Court. On 20   February   1988 the two applicants were arrested and imprisoned in separate proceedings. The Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 August 1987 was served on them on 19 May 1988. In a judgment of 31 March 2000 the first applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and the second applicant to twenty years’ imprisonment. They did not appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 - With regard to the period to be considered in examining the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings, the applicants submitted that they had been severely affected by the proceedings since the warrants for their arrest had been issued by the investigating judge on 1 September 1983 and 26 October 1984 respectively. As the applicants had fled, they had not been directly affected by the proceedings. They had been arrested and imprisoned in separate proceedings on 20 February 1988. As their arrest had had no direct link with the present case, the date of that arrest could not be considered to be the point of departure for calculating the length of the proceedings. It was as of 19 May 1988, the date of service of the judgment of 19 August 1987 by which they were charged and committed for trial at the Assize Court, that the applicants officially learnt of the investigation and felt the effects. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration began on 19 May 1988 and ended with the applicants’ final conviction by a judgment of the Assize Court of 31   March   2000. It had therefore lasted eleven years, ten months and twelve days. On the basis of all the above factors, and having regard to the overall period of the proceedings, which was nearly twelve years for one level of jurisdiction, the proceedings had not complied with the requirements of a reasonable time. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court awarded 10,700 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 1,838.54 euros for costs and expenses.   © 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