CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 septembre 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      Application No. 23373/94                     by I.K.                     against Denmark          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 10 September 1997, the following members being present:             Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President           MM.   J.-C. GEUS                A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                P. LORENZEN                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA                A. ARABADJIEV             Ms.   M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 11 November 1993 by I.K. against Denmark and registered on 2 February 1994 under file No. 23373/94;        Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 14 July 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 5 September 1995 as well as the information submitted by him on 24 June 1997;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1934. He is a businessman and resides in Copenhagen. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr Anders Hvass, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        It appears that the police in 1987 obtained information concerning the illegal purchase and sale of tax free cars involving the applicant. On 28 September 1989 the Criminal Court of Gentofte (Gentofte kriminalret) issued a search warrant in respect of, inter alia, the applicant's home and a search thereof was subsequently carried out.        On 3 October 1989 the applicant was arrested, suspected of fraud contrary to section 279 cf. section 286 of the Penal Code in connection with the purchase and sale of tax free cars. He was released the following day as the Criminal Court did not find it sufficiently established that the applicant had committed any offence.        It appears, however, that the police maintained their suspicion against the applicant who was interrogated on some occasions in 1989 and 1990. Further interrogations took place in 1992.        On 15 June 1993 the indictment was served on the applicant from which it appears that the case concerned ten accused and their involvement in acts of embezzlement and fraud in connection with the purchase and sale of more than 100 cars.        By judgment of 15 March 1996 the Copenhagen City Court (Københavns byret) found the applicant guilty of some of the charges brought against him and acquitted him of others. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.        The judgment was appealed against to the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret).        On 18 June 1997 the High Court of Eastern Denmark pronounced judgment in the case. Again the applicant was found guilty of some of the charges and acquitted of others. He was sentenced to 21/2 years' imprisonment which was suspended provided he did not commit other offences within a period of two years. In meting out the sentence the High Court stated as follows:        (Translation)        "It appears that the case commenced with a notification      from the customs authorities to the police in April 1987      concerning ... and (the applicant) who was charged in      September 1989. The case has accordingly been pending for      more than ten years. It appears furthermore that this      period of time was caused, inter alia, by the fact that,      for lack of resources, no investigations were carried out      for 31/2 years following the notification in April 1987 until      October 1990... . The case has furthermore been lying idle,      for lack of resources, in the courts for one year and      three months before it commenced in the City Court on      4 October 1994. Accordingly, at least five years of the      investigative and preparatory stages relate to matters      which (the applicant) could not influence. Having regard to      the proceedings and the outcome of the case it is      furthermore clear that the complexity which, inter alia,      caused the case to last approximately 11/2 years in the City      Court and approximately one year in the High Court, was not      due to the fact that the individual offences were      complicated   as such. This was to a great extent due to an      enlargement of the case and a link up of persons and issues      related to the case ... which turned out to be unnecessary.      Furthermore, on the basis of the information available to      the High Court it is clear that the unnecessary length of      the case, as such, caused considerable strain on (the      applicant).        Considering the case as a whole the High Court therefore      agrees that (the applicant's) right under Article 6 para. 1      of the European Convention on Human Rights to a trial      within a reasonable time was breached.      ...        As a consequence thereof ... (the majority) votes in favour      of suspending the term of imprisonment ... ."     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complained that the criminal charge against him was not determined within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 11 November 1993 and registered on 2 February 1994. On 5 April 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and invited them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits thereof.        The Government's observations were submitted on 14 July 1995 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 5 September 1995.        On 24 June 1997 the applicant informed the Commission that in view of the suspension of his term of imprisonment and the High Court of Eastern Denmark's finding of a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings, he did not intend to pursue the matter.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission recalls that the High Court of Eastern Denmark in its judgment of 18 June 1997 expressly stated that the circumstances of the criminal case against the applicant disclosed a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings and for this reason suspended the prison sentence imposed. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the applicant has expressed his satisfaction therewith and in view of this does not intend to pursue the case pending before the Commission.        In the light of the above the Commission finds that the matter giving rise to the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. Moreover, it finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber