CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 août 2000

.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 21 August 2000 Bertin-Mourot v. France - 36343/97 Judgment 2.8.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings – starting point of the period to be taken into account Length of criminal proceedings: violation Facts : The case concerned the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant for unauthorised export of a painting of disputed authenticity, in breach of customs and tax legislation among other provisions. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The starting-point of the period to be taken into consideration had been, at the latest, the date when the public prosecutor had requested the opening of a judicial investigation in respect of the applicant, whom he had therefore “charged” with a criminal offence within the meaning of the Convention, and not seven years later, as the Government had submitted, since the fact that the applicant had not been in France during that period did not mean in the present case that his situation had not been “substantially affected”. The proceedings had therefore lasted fourteen years, six months and two days. While the case had been somewhat complex on account of its financial and cultural implications, the Court considered that, regard being had to the overall length of the proceedings and notwithstanding the applicant’s conduct, which could not provide a decisive explanation for such a long period, the “reasonable time” condition had not been satisfied. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant FRF 60,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF   28,854 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