CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   244 27.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CASSE v. LUXEMBOURG   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Casse v. Luxembourg (application no. 40327/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the excessive length of the civil and criminal proceedings; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention; and a violation of Article 6 § 3 (a) (right of accused to be informed promptly of the accusation against her/him).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 16,000   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Jean-Marie Casse is a French national who was born in 1944 and lives in Thionville (France).   On 11 March 1996 bank B., having discovered that some of its former employees, including the applicant, had misappropriated funds, had the accounts held by the applicant with it and with bank U. seized. On 22 March 1996 it lodged a criminal complaint against a person or persons unknown, alleging embezzlement, forgery and uttering of private, commercial or banking documents, workplace theft and ordinary theft.   In accordance with the principle that “civil proceedings must await the outcome of criminal proceedings”, the appellate court stayed the proceedings seeking to confirm the validity of the attachment order in respect of the applicant’s bank accounts.   On 17 May 1996 the investigating judge ordered the seizure of the applicant’s accounts and assets with banks B. and U. The applicant made several enquiries of the investigating judge and the prosecuting authorities as to the progress of the proceedings.   To date, he has not been charged or even summoned before the investigating judge.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 18 November 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the unfairness and the length of the civil and criminal proceedings against him. He also complained that he had had no remedy by which to complain of the length of the proceedings, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Finally, he alleged that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court observed that the civil proceedings had already lasted over ten years for two levels of jurisdiction, while the criminal proceedings had lasted over nine years and ten months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of both sets of proceedings. With regard to the criminal proceedings, the Court pointed out that, as Mr Casse had still not been charged, he did not have any procedural status under domestic law; that constituted an aggravating factor in relation to the violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 13   Noting that, in any event, the applicant had not had an effective remedy at the time the application was lodged, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13.   Article 6 § 3 (a)   Lastly, the Court noted that, ten years after being “accused”, and despite having been told by the investigating judge as far back as September 1996 that he would be “summoned in good time”, the applicant had still not been formally charged or even brought before the investigating judge. The Court further observed in particular that the latter had told the applicant that, since he had not yet been charged and did not feature in the case file for any other reason, it was not possible to provide him with more detailed information. In view of these particular circumstances the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (a).   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Having regard to its finding in relation to Article 6 § 1, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 separately.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.