Lexploria

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

Menu

I.K. v. DENMARK

I.K. v. DENMARK

LEXI