CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 551 08.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Rausch v. Luxembourg (application no 29733/08)     OVER 11 YEARS OF PROCEEDINGS FOR A STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE IS EXCESSIVE   Unanimously   Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Gustave Rausch, is a national of Luxembourg who was born in 1951 and lives in Mertzig (Luxembourg). He is a farmer. In 1998 he lodged a criminal complaint as a civil party against his neighbour for allegedly stealing a head of cattle and fraudulently changing its identification number.   Between 2000 and 2007 the Pre-Trial Division of the Diekirch District Court made three orders sending the case for trial but each of them was annulled. In 2008 the judges found that the prosecution had become time-barred. That decision was quashed, after which the Pre ‑ Trial Division of the Court of Appeal decided that the prosecution was not time ‑ barred and remitted the case to the Criminal Division of the District Court, where the proceedings are still pending.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   6   §   1 Mr Rausch complained about the excessive length of the proceedings, which had already lasted for over 11 years and seven months at one level of jurisdiction.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 June 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Luxembourg Government had argued that the application had to be declared inadmissible because, before lodging it, Mr Rausch had not brought proceedings before the domestic courts to establish the liability of the Luxembourg State (in accordance with the admissibility conditions under Article 35 of the Convention). The Court referred to a previous judgment in which it had found that the action for State liability on account of shortcomings in judicial services (Law of 1 September 1988), on which the Government had relied, constituted an effective remedy that had to be used before lodging an application with it to complain about the length of proceedings in Luxembourg. However, the Court had also stated that this remedy was “effective” only since 1 August 2008, after Mr Rausch lodged his application. He could not therefore be penalised for not using that remedy.   The Government admitted that the length of the proceedings in question had not been reasonable. In view of the non-complex nature of the case and in accordance with its case ‑ law, the Court reached the same conclusion. It further noted with great concern that this was not an isolated case, because it had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on several occasions in similar cases raising “reasonable time” issues. It could not but stress that States had to find the sufficient means to secure to everyone the right to obtain a final decision within a reasonable time.   The Court accordingly found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   It held that Luxembourg had to pay Mr Rausch 16,000 euros (EUR) for the non-pecuniary damage that he had sustained as a result of the length of the proceedings, together with EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .