Information Note on the Court’s case-law 40

March 2002

Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 44829/98

Decision 5.3.2002 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Authorities not responsible for delays in criminal proceedings having taken place in other countries in respect of the same facts: inadmissible

In March 1993 the applicant’s partner was found dead in Belgium. A crimi nal investigation was launched by the Belgian authorities. In April 1993 the applicant was arrested in Luxembourg and extradited to Belgium, where he was placed in detention. In the course of the investigation, it was established that the victim had been k illed in Luxembourg. As a consequence, the Belgian courts considered that they were not competent to deal with the case and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued. In December 1994 the Belgian courts ruled that he could not be ext radited to Luxembourg. In May 1994 his release from detention was ordered. In 1996 the Belgian authorities transmitted the case-file on the criminal investigation to the Netherlands Minister of Justice. In August 1996 a criminal investigation was launched in the Netherlands. In October 1996 the applicant was arrested there, placed in pre-trial detention and charged with homicide. In February 1997 a Regional Court, which considered itself competent to deal with the case, convicted him of homicide and sentenc ed him to seven years’ imprisonment. His appeal of the decision was rejected in July 1997. His subsequent appeal in cassation was dismissed by the Supreme Court in June 1998.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: In criminal matters, the “reasonable time” refe rred to in Article 6(1) begins to run as soon as a person is “charged”. “Charge”, for the purposes of the present Article, may be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test of whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected”. In the instant case, the applicant became “substantially affected” when he was arrested in the Netherlands in October 1996. As to the applicant’s argument that he had already become substantially affected by his arrest in Luxembourg in April 1993, the Netherlands authorities could not be held responsible for any delays that might have occurred in separate disconti nued criminal proceedings taken previously against the applicant on the basis of the same facts in Belgium or Luxembourg in which the Netherlands authorities were not involved. The criminal proceedings against the applicant lasted in total slightly more th an 19 months before three instances. The length of these proceedings could not be considered as having exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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