Information Note on the Court’s case-law 53

May 2003

Soto Sanchez v. Spain (dec.) - 66990/01

Decision 20.5.2003 [Section IV]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Criminal charge

Applicability of Article 6 to constitutional proceedings: admissible

Article 35

Article 35-1

Six-month period

Six month issue raised by the Court of its own motion: inadmissible

In January 1991, the applicant was arrested in the context of a judicial investigation relating to drug trafficking. In June 1993, the Audiencia Nacional found the applicant guilty of concealment of drug trafficking, of a financial offence and of forging p rivate documents, and imposed a prison sentence of four years and two months, as well as fines. The applicant appealed on a point of law. In October 1994, the Supreme Court held that the applicant was guilty of the offence of concealment of drug traffickin g, with the aggravating circumstance of belonging to an organised group; it increased the penalty to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered the applicant to pay a fine. The applicant lodged an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court. In May 1995, the a ppeal was declared admissible, then various procedural acts were carried out until June 1996. In July 1995, the Court had dismissed the applicant’s request to suspend enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court. A further application to suspend enforc ement was dismissed in December 1997. In May 2000, the Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo appeal in part and set aside in part the judgment of the Supreme Court. In June 2000, the Supreme Court, after dismissing the applicant’s application for a red uction in his penalty owing to the length of the proceedings, increased the custodial sentence to seven years.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1: the Government’s preliminary objection that Article 6 was not applicable to the proceedings before the Constituti onal Court is rejected. If an amparo appeal is upheld in whole or in part, the Constitutional Court does not merely determine the provision of the Constitution which has been infringed; it sets aside the contested decision and the case is remitted for reco nsideration before the competent court. The constitutional proceedings thus form a subsequent stage of the corresponding criminal proceedings instances and their outcome may be decisive for the convicted person. As regards the objection of failure to exhau st domestic remedies, it is joined to the merits of the application.

Inadmissible under Article 8: this complaint was raised before the Court more than six months after the final domestic decision had been taken. Admittedly, the Government have not raised any objection of inadmissibility of the application alleging failure to observe t he six-month period. However, examination of the six-month rule cannot be dispensed with solely because the Government have not pleaded inadmissibility on that ground (see Walker v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). The complaint must t herefore be rejected for failure to observe the six-month period.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-L aw Information Notes