SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 30285/96

by Ruddy GROSSE against Denmark

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 2 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr B. Conforti, President , Mr G. Bonello, Mr P. Lorenzen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr E. Levits,

Mr A. Kovler, judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 February 1995 and registered on 26 February 1996,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the Commission’s partial decision of 9 September 1998,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Danish national, born in 1942 and living in H ørup Hav, Denmark.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant moved from Denmark to Germany in July 1980 as a consequence of his taking over the control of a firm situated in Germany.  In 1981 he bought a car, registered in Germany.

On 1 August 1985 the applicant was informed by the police that he was charged with having imported a used German registered car into Denmark contrary to the applicable customs and registration regulations.

On 21 November 1985 an order for seizure of the car was issued by the Sønderborg City Court.

On 29 January 1986 an indictment was served on the applicant by the Chief of Police in Sønderborg ( Politimesteren i Sønderborg ) charging him, inter alia , with evasion of customs duties relating to the alleged import of the car and to his subsequent use of it in Denmark.

On 26 March 1986 the applicant was acquitted of the charges and the seizure of his car was terminated by the City Court.

On appeal the High Court of Western Denmark ( Vestre Landsret ), on 22 September 1986, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine of 26,000 DKK.  In addition, the applicant was ordered to pay outstanding value added tax in the amount of 6,491 DKK and the costs of the case.

On 8 January 1987 the applicant requested the Ministry of Justice to grant him leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ( Højesteret ).  On 3 June 1987 the Ministry of Justice notified the applicant that the processing of his request for leave to appeal would await the Supreme Court's judgment in a similar case, hereinafter called "the Ryborg Case".  In this case the Supreme Court had requested the European Court of Justice to make a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 177 of the EU Treaty.

Following the preliminary ruling on 23 April 1991 by the European Court of Justice in "the Ryborg Case", the Prosecutor-General ( Rigsadvokaten ) joined Mr Ryborg in his plea for acquittal before the Supreme Court.  On 28 August 1991 the Supreme Court acquitted Mr Ryborg of the charges against him.

On 8 February 1993 the Ministry of Justice granted the applicant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.  The trial was scheduled to commence on 15 April 1993.

On 25 March 1993 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EU Treaty with regard to the compatibility with the EU legislation of the Danish legislation on registration of - and imposition of duties on - imported cars.

On 26 March 1993 the Supreme Court adjourned the case pending a reply from the Prosecutor-General.

On 13 January 1994 the Prosecutor-General submitted that the applicant’s request ought to be rejected.

On 19 April 1994 the Supreme Court decided not to refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

On 24 January 1995 the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment of 22 September 1986 and thus found the applicant guilty of a violation of the charges brought against him.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the criminal case against him was not determined within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the length of the proceedings concerning the determination of the criminal charges against him.  The parties agree that the proceedings commenced on 1 August 1985 and ended on 24 January 1995.  Accordingly, they lasted a total of 9 years, 5 months and 23 days.

The applicant considers that the length of the proceedings exceeds the reasonable time requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.  The Government contest this.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.

Erik Fribergh Benedetto Conforti Registrar President