CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juin 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31 June 2001 Beck v. Norway - 26390/95 Judgment 26.6.2001 [Section III] Article 34 Victim Length of proceedings taken into account in sentencing: no violation Facts : Criminal proceedings for serious fraud were brought against the applicant in 1987 and in November 1992 the City Court convicted him and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. In sentencing, it attached weight "to a not insignificant degree" to the fact that a long time had elapsed since commission of the offences (the maximum sentence being nine years). The Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in September 1994, recalling that the City Court had taken the length of the proceedings into consideration as a mitigating factor. Although more time had passed since that judgment, the Supreme Court saw no reason for reducing the sentence. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The City Court expressly upheld the substance of the applicant’s complaint that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. Moreover, the applicant was afforded adequate redress for the alleged violation: despite the seriousness of the offences, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, at the lower end of the possible sentences   and appreciably less than in comparable cases. The City Court expressly attached "not insignificant" weight to this consideration, which stood out as being the primary mitigating factor. Although the reasoning could have been more precise, the reduction in sentence on account of the length was measurable and had a decisive impact on the applicant’s sentence. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes