CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 1992

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. November 1992 Abdoella v. the Netherlands - 12728/87 Judgment 25.11.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Submission out of time because not made within the time-limits laid down in Rule 48 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Conclusion : dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Compass of the "case" delimited not by the Commission's report, which regarded as "particularly relevant" only the delay incurred in the second appeal on points of law, but by its admissibility decision, which in this case concerns the length of the proceedings taken as a whole. Starting-point: the date of the applicant's arrest. Final point: the date of the Supreme Court's rejection of the applicant's second appeal on points of law. Total: four years, four months and one day. B.   Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings Total period as such not unreasonable in view of fact that five court examinations were involved. Detention of accused is a factor to be considered in assessing reasonableness of length of criminal proceedings. Time required on both occasions for transmission of case-file to Supreme Court totals more than twenty-one months of the fifty-two which it took to deal with the case.   Such protracted periods of inactivity are unacceptable, especially if the accused is detained. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage Finding of a breach of Article 6 § 1 in itself sufficient just satisfaction (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses before Convention organs Reimbursement. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (unanimously).   © 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