Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19830706-885880
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 16:30:13+00:00
Document Index: 63243880

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 153", "l'article 50", "l'article 6", "l'article 25", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

G. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche G. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partielllement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8858/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-07-06;8858.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : G.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUE`PE NÂ° 8858/8 0 G . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y G . c/REPUBLIQUE FEDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 6 July 1983 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 juillet 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
A rt icle 6, paragraph 1, and A rt icle 25 of the Convention : An applicant who, after his conviction at first instance, benefited from the discontinuance of further proceedings as reparation for a violation of Article 6. paragraph I (reasonable time), specifically found by the competent domestic jurisdiction, cannot be considered to be a victim of a violation of Article 6, paragraph I ( reasonable time) .
Article 6, paragraphe 1, et artlcle 25 de la Convention : Ne peut pas Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comrne victime d'une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe I(dÃ©(ai raisonnable) le requÃ©rant qui, aprÃ¨s condamnation en premiÃ¨re instance, a bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'un abandon des poursuites Ã titre de rÃ©paration pour une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe I(dÃ©lai raisonnable) expressÃ©ment constatÃ©e par la juridietion nationale compÃ©tente .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 7)
Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant* in 1964, who was suspected of having participated in bombings in Northern Italy dated to rhe South Tvrol problem . After his arrest in 1966, the applicant was detained for six months on remand then released, subject to judicial control . It was only in 1976 that the indictment was filed and, after several procedural incidents, the applicant and four other persons were convicted in May 1980, the applicant being sentenced to three years' imprisonment . â¢ The applicant was reptsented betm the Commission by Mr . D . Bucher, barrister in Mutlangen .
On the applicant's appeal, the Federal Court quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the original court for a new trial. In its judgment, the Federal Court found that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Conention had been violated because of the excessive length of proceedings . For this and other reasons, the Public Prosecutorâ¢ decided in 1982 to discontinue the proceedings, in accordance with Section 153 (c), paragraph 1, No. 1, of the Code on Criminal Procedure, and specifically emphasised that its decision should be considered as reparation, within the meaning of Article 50 of the Convention, for the violation of Article 6, paragraph J . suffered by the applicant .
THE LA W The applicant maintains his complaint about the length of criminal proceedings although these proceedings which were instituted against him in October 1964 were discontinued by the Public Prosecutor on 1 October 1982, mainly on account of the finding in the Federal Court's decision of 3 February 1982 that the duration of the proceedings in question had exceeded a reasonable time . The Commission and Court have already held that an applicant can n o longer claim to be a victim (Article 25) of the failure to obsÃ©rve the "reasonable time" requirement in Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention if the relevant Courts expressly acknowledged the existence of a breach of that provision and if redress has been given (Eckle case, judgment of 15 July 1982, series A, paras . 67, 69-70 and 94 ; decision on the admissibility of Application No . 8182/78, D . R . 25, p . 142) . The Commission notes that the Federal Court in its decision of 3 February 1982 expressly recognised a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings in question . This finding was also one of the reasons on which the Public Prosecutor based the decision to discontinue the proceedings and it has not been disputed by the respondent Government either . The Commission furthermore notes that the applicant always requested the national authorities dealing with his complaint under Article 6, paragraph I to discontinue the criminal proceedings on the ground that they exceeded a reasonable length . The Commission notes that the applicant was charged with very serious offences and had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment in the first trial . In these particular circumstances the Commission considers that he was given adequate redress for his complaint by the Federal Court and later by the Public Prosecutor's decision to discontinue the proceedings (cf . Eckle case, ibid . para . 94) . It follows that the applicant is no longer a victim of the
alleged violation of A rticle 6, paragraph I and his complaint must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention .
For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
RÃ©sumÃ© des fait s Des poursuites pÃ©nales ont Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©es contre le requÃ©rant' en 1964 pour avoir participÃ© Ã un attentat Ã la bombe en Italie du Nord en relation avec la question du Tyrol du Sud/Haul Adige . ArrÃªtÃ© en 1966, le requÃ©rant demeura plus de six mois en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive puis fut mis en libertÃ© sous contrÃ´le judiciaire . Ce n'est qu'en 1976 que l'acte d'accusation fut dressÃ© et, aprÃ¨s plusieurs incidents de procÃ©dure, le requÃ©rant et quatre autres personnes furent condamnÃ©s en mai 1980, la peine prononcÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant Ã©tant de trois ans de prison . Sur pourvoi du requÃ©rantla Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale cassa le jugement et renvoya l'affaire au tribunal pour nouveau jugement . Dans son arrÃªt, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale dÃ©clara que l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention avait Ã©tÃ© violÃ© en raison de la durÃ©e excessive de la procÃ©dure .
Pour ce motif et plusieurs autres, le parquet dÃ©cida alors en 1982 de retirer son acte d'accusation et de renoncer aux poursuites en application de l'article 153 (c), paragraphe 1, nÂ° 1, du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, en soulignant expressÃ©ment que sa dÃ©cision devait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une satisfaction Ã©quilable, au sens de l'article 50 de la Convention, pour la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, commise au dÃ©triment du requÃ©rant .
(TRADUCTION ) EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant maintient son grief relatif Ã la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale le concernant, alors mÃªme que le parquet a arrÃªtÃ© le 1Â° octobre 1982 â¢ Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait re prÃ©sentÃ© derant la Commission par Mâ¢ D . Bucher, avocat Ã Mutlangen .
- 7 _
les poursuites engagÃ©es contre lui en octobre 1969, essentiellement parce que la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale avait constatÃ© dans son arrÃªt du 3 fÃ©vrier 1982 que la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure avait dÃ©passÃ© un dÃ©lai raisonnable . La Commission et la Cour ont dÃ©jÃ dÃ©clarÃ© qu'un requÃ©rant ne peut plus se prÃ©tendre victime (au sens de l'article 25) du non-respect de l'exigence du Â«dÃ©lai raisonnableÂ» figurant Ã l'article 6, paragraphe I, de la Convention si les tribunaux compÃ©tents ont expressÃ©ment reconnu l'existence d'une violation de cette disposition et accordÃ© rÃ©paration (affaire Eckle, arrÃ©t du 15 juillet 1982, SÃ©rie A, nÂ° 51 . par . 67, 69-70 et 94 ; dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte nÂ° 8182/78 . D .R . 25, p . 142) . La Commission relÃ¨ve que, dans son arrÃªt du 3 fÃ©vrier 1982, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale a expressÃ©ment reconnu l'existence d'une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention en raison de la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale en question . Cette constatation Ã©tait aussi l'un des motifs invoquÃ©s par le parquet pour dÃ©cider de mettre fin aux poursuites et le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur ne l'a pas contestÃ©e . La Commission relÃ©ve en outre que le requÃ©rant a toujours demandÃ© aux juridictions nationales examinant le grief qu'il tirait de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, la clÃ´ture des poursuites pÃ©nales parce qu'elles avaient dÃ©passÃ© un dÃ©lai raisonnable . La Commission note que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait sous le coup de trÃ¨s graves accusations et avait Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã trois ans de prison en premiÃ¨re instance . Dans ces conditions, elle estime que l'intÃ©ressÃ© a vu son grief convenablement apaisÃ© par la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale d'abord, puis par la dÃ©cision du parquet de mettre fin aux poursuites (cf . affaire Eckle, ibid . par. 94) . II s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'est plus victime d'une prÃ©tendue violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, et que son grief doit, dÃ¨s lors, Ãªtre rejetÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission
DECLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE .
-8-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 06/07/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page