Information Note on the Court’s case-law 10

September 1999

Djaid v. France - 38687/97

Judgment 29.9.1999 [Section III]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of criminal proceedings: violation

Facts : In November 1992 the applicant was arrested by the police in connection with an investigation into international drug trafficking. He was convicted in April 1994 and the conviction was up held on appeal in February 1995. A few days later, the applicant lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation, which was however rejected in May 1997. In the meantime, the applicant had been released after completing his sentence. He complains about the leng th of the proceedings.

Law : The period to be examined began in November 1992 and ended in May 1997. It therefore lasted 4 years 6 months 15 days. The case had a certain complexity, concerning as it did international drug trafficking, but the parties agree that the investigation was carried out diligently and the same is true of the proceedings before the first instance and appeal courts. On the other hand, the proceedings before the Court of Cassation lasted 2 years 3 months 12 days and, although the applic ant may be held partly responsible for the length of the proceedings, having requested extensions of time-limits, that cannot justify the length of the procedure at issue. Almost a year passed between the lodging of the judge-rapporteur's report and the ju dgment of the court, and the Government have not provided any convincing explanation for this delay. Furthermore, the obligation of expedition which falls on the Government was particularly important for the applicant, in so far as he was regarded under do mestic law as being in detention on remand.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous).

Article 41: The Court considered that the applicant had undoubtedly sustained non-pecuniary damage, despite not having submitted any claim in this respect. It awarded him the s um of 20,000 francs (FRF).

© 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