CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 novembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     639   16.11.99   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF VAN PELT v. FRANCE   Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 9 a.m.     The applicant   The case concerns an application (application no. 31070/96) brought by a Dutch national, Leonardus Van Pelt, who was born in 1950 and lives in Eindhoven.   Summary of the facts   Mr Van Pelt was convicted of drug trafficking and other drug-related offences by the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance on 22 February 1990. He appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal, which overturned the conviction.   On an appeal by the Principal Public Prosecutor, the Court of Cassation quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Amiens Court of Appeal, which heard the case without Mr   Van Pelt, who was in hospital, being present, and upheld the original conviction. The Court of Cassation refused the applicant leave to appeal on points of law, on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody or shown that it had been absolutely impossible for him to do so at the material time. Overall, the criminal proceedings against Mr Van Pelt lasted more than eight years and nine months, from 30   January 1987 (the date of his arrest) to 19 October 1995 (when his appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible).   Complaints   Mr Van Pelt complains that his case was not heard within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also complains that he was not able to exercise, under normal conditions, the remedies available to him, relying on Article 6 and, in so far as necessary, Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 April 1996 and declared admissible by the Court on 30 March 1999. Composition of the Court   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Judges , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Substitute Judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Michèle Dubrocard , Agent , and Claire d’Ursor   and François Capin-Dulhoste, Counsel,   Applicant:   Claire Waquet, Jacoba de Jongh-Dunand and P. Gruijthuissen , Counsel .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.