Published on 20 November 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 22501/23 Renaldo Rudy KEMPENAAR against the Netherlands lodged on 26 May 2023 communicated on 2 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the question of whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant complied with the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The criminal proceedings started on 29 March 2019 when the applicant was arrested for simple assault and resisting arrest. The Regional Court of Central Netherlands convicted the applicant on 10 July 2019. The applicant appealed and requested to cross-examine two witnesses.

On 7 July 2021, after initially denying the request, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden decided to question the witnesses before adjudicating the case. On 1 June 2022 the Court of Appeal convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two months imprisonment. Its reasoning included the following:

“The [appellate] court agrees with the defence that the reasonable time limit has been exceeded on appeal. However, it considers that the acknowledgement that the reasonable time limit had been exceeded is sufficient. Admittedly, two years and more than 10 months elapsed between lodging the appeal and the delivery of this judgment, however this was caused, among other things, by the fact that, on the initiative of the defence, witnesses were questioned by the investigating judge. Taking this into account, the Court of Appeal considers that the exceeding of the reasonable time period on appeal is limited. Furthermore, the proceedings as a whole (meaning at first instance and on appeal) were completed within the total of the time limits applicable to each of those stages”.

On 16 May 2023 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible on summary reasoning, applying section 80a of the Judiciary Organisation Act.

The applicant complains that the finding of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time provides insufficient redress.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the Court of Appeal in its judgment acknowledged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, which judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, may the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 178-192, ECHR 2006-V)?

2. If the applicant may still be considered a victim and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Wiredu v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47595/08, 10 September 2013)?