[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BODDAERT v. BELGIUM - 12919/87 [1992] ECHR 62 (12 October 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/62.html Cite as: 16 EHRR 242, [1992] ECHR 62, (1993) 16 EHRR 242

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Boddaert v. Belgium*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance

with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the

relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of

the following judges:

Mr R. Bernhardt, President,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr J. De Meyer,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr S.K. Martens,

Mr I. Foighel,

Mr R. Pekkanen,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr A.B. Baka,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 April and

22 September 1992,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 65/1991/317/389. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came

into force on 1 January 1990.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European

Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 10 June 1991,

within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and

Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in

an application (no. 12919/87) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged

with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Belgian

national, Mr Jean-Claude Boddaert, on 13 February 1986.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Belgium recognised

the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).

The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the

facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its

obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that

he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer

who would represent him (Rule 30).

3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio

Mr J. De Meyer, the elected judge of Belgian nationality (Article 43

of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of

the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)).

On 28 June 1991, in the presence of the Registrar, the

President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely

Mr J. Cremona, Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr N. Valticos,

Mr S.K. Martens, Mr I. Foighel, Mr R. Pekkanen and Mr A.N. Loizou

(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4)

(art. 43).

Subsequently, Mr F. Matscher and Mr A.B. Baka, substitute

judges, replaced Mr Cremona, whose term of office had expired, and

Mrs Bindschedler-Robert, who had resigned, and both of whose

successors had taken up their duties before the hearing (Rules 2

para. 3 and 22 para. 1).

4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of

the Belgian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the

Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the need for a written

procedure (Rule 37 para. 1). In accordance with the order made in

consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial

on 4 November 1991 and the Government's memorial on 7 November. On

29 November the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar

that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.

5. Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be

appearing before the Court, the President directed on

26 November 1991 that the oral proceedings should open on

22 April 1992 (Rule 38).

6. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights

Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a

preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr J. Lathouwers, Legal Officer,

Ministry of Justice, Deputy Agent,

Mr P. Lemmens, avocat, Counsel;

(b) for the Commission

Mr C.L. Rozakis, Delegate;

(c) for the applicant

Mr P. Van Damme, avocat, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Lemmens for the Government,

Mr Rozakis for the Commission and Mr Van Damme for the applicant, as

well as replies to its questions.

7. As Mr Ryssdal was unable to attend the final deliberations

on 22 September 1992, he was replaced by Mr R. Bernhardt, substitute

judge (Rule 21 para. 5).

AS TO THE FACTS

A. The preliminary inquiry and the investigation

8. Mr Jean-Claude Boddaert was born at Ougrée (Belgium). At

the time of the most recent information supplied to the Court, he

was in detention in Lantin Prison.

9. On 1 July 1980 a murder was committed outside the bar "Le

Troquet", which he ran. The resulting trial in the Liège Assize

Court, at which he testified as a witness, ended on 18 March 1982

with the conviction of a certain Demain.

10. On 18 July 1980 the gendarmerie discovered in one of the

cellars of the building rented by the applicant the body of one

Jehin, whose death had occurred on 17 July. Suspicion fell

immediately on Mr Boddaert and on Mr Piron, who was arrested on

19 July. On the same day a warrant was issued for the arrest of the

applicant, who had fled to Spain the day before, for fear of being

accused of Jehin's murder.

However, on 22 July Mr Boddaert contacted the Belgian

police in order to give his version of events and to "negotiate" his

return. He was handed over to the Belgian authorities on 30 July.

The investigation had been opened on 18 July 1980.

11. From July to December 1980 the investigating judge and the

investigators effected a large number of procedural steps,

interviewed numerous witnesses and questioned on several occasions

Mr Boddaert and Mr Piron, who each accused the other of Jehin's

murder. The crime was said to have been perpetrated in the course

of an argument concerning debts owed by Jehin to the applicant which

had taken place at the latter's bar in the absence of any witnesses.

12. The report of the autopsy and that of the ballistics expert

were filed on 25 November and 15 December 1980; the psychiatric

reports on the applicant and his co-accused, Mr Piron, were

submitted on 23 and 28 September 1981.

On 10 March 1981 the investigating judge had requested the

Liège gendarmerie to transmit to him the results of inquiries into

the character of Boddaert and Piron, because he "[was] carrying out

the last interviews and the file could shortly be completed".

In a report of 19 January 1982 the ballistics expert and

the pathologist concluded that the applicant's description of events

corresponded more closely to the medical findings than that of his

co-accused.

13. On 2 February 1982 the Liège indictment division (chambre

des mises en accusation) ordered Mr Boddaert's release and

on 2 March that of Mr Piron.

14. On 11 May 1982 the investigating judge asked the special

investigation branch ("BSR") of the Seraing gendarmerie to reopen

the file, working together with their Liège colleagues, and in

particular "to examine whether Jehin's murder [was] not connected

with the receiving of stolen goods and thefts which [might] have

been organised from the applicant's bar, 'Le Troquet'". This was

apparently the only investigative measure carried out between

2 February 1982 and 28 June 1983. The B.S.R. communicated the

information requested in a report of 2 June 1982.

15. In August, October and November 1982 several complaints

were laid against Mr Piron for assault, wounding and threatening

behaviour. In April 1983 he was questioned in connection with death

threats that he had allegedly made against Mr Bustin, the last

witness to have seen Jehin alive and whom he accused of denouncing

him for that murder. He was also interviewed in respect of damage

that he was said to have caused to eight boats, one of which

belonged to Mr Bustin. Proceedings were instituted in the Liège

Criminal Court, but were adjourned by that court sine die on account

of fresh charges brought against Mr Piron.

On 1 June 1983 Piron was again remanded in custody and

charged with having, on the night of 30 to 31 May 1983, murdered a

certain Thérèse Hemeleers, who had been found dead in his flat.

From that date Mr Piron was the subject of two

investigations conducted jointly; one concerned Jehin's murder, the

other the offences committed in 1982 and 1983.

16. On 28 June 1983 the crown prosecutor instructed the

investigating judge to make further inquiries in the Jehin case.

The latter submitted reports on these inquiries on 14, 20 and

24 February and 12 (two reports), 15 and 19 March 1984.

The investigating judge requested and, on 26 December 1983,

received from a neuropsychiatrist a number of clarifications on the

report which he had drawn up on Piron's responsibility.

17. The investigation marked time from 19 March 1984 to

10 May 1985, when the crown prosecutor expressed the opinion that

Mr Boddaert and Mr Piron should be committed for trial in the assize

court.

18. In the meantime, on 9 November 1984, the crown prosecutor

had asked the investigating judge responsible for the Hemeleers case

to make a number of additional inquiries, which took until

January 1985.

On 12 November 1984 the investigating judge in question

sent to his colleague dealing with the applicant's case a note

worded as follows:

"While finalising the file with a view to communicating

it, I found in it a photocopy of a document (memorial) in

the case [of the applicant and his co-accused] the original

of which has long since been passed to the accused ...

I considered it necessary to seize the documents because

I thought they might provide indications particularly of a

psychological nature for the investigation of the case in

question [Hemeleers]; on re-reading it I am of the opinion

that this memorial is not indispensable to shed light on my

case."

19. A hearing was to have been held before the chambre du

conseil on 24 May 1985, but it was postponed at the defence's

request until 14 and then 21 June 1985.

20. On 24 June the chambre du conseil of the Liège First-

Instance Court decided to communicate the file to the principal

public prosecutor at the Liège Court of Appeal "so that the case

[might] be referred by him to the indictment division". It ordered

in addition that the applicant and his co-accused be arrested and

detained in a remand centre to be designated by the assize court;

this order was put into effect the day before the assize court's

session (see paragraph 25 below). The chambre du conseil had first

dismissed a submission from Mr Boddaert based on the failure to

comply with the reasonable time requirement laid down in Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. It held as follows:

"... although there has been detailed and extensive

evidence against the two accused since the investigation

began, the case is rendered particularly complex by the

fact that the accused give very different versions of the

facts and accuse each other, all of which has created a

need for investigative measures to elicit the truth,

measures which were taken in 1983 and 1984;

... as soon as the main part of the file had been

completed, the accused were released, and this has given

them an opportunity, unusual in view of the seriousness of

the charges against them, to rehabilitate themselves and

present themselves in a favourable light before the trial

court which will, if necessary, be called upon to punish

them;

... the accused are therefore not justified in

complaining of the lapse of time since the events in issue

because in the circumstances of the case this delay may in

fact improve their situation;

... for the rest it will be for the trial court to decide

whether the witnesses' memories are sufficiently accurate

and clear for it to find that the charges have been proved

and pass sentence accordingly;"

On 25 June 1985 the two accused filed objections to this

order.

21. On 2 July 1985 the principal public prosecutor lodged

submissions with the Liège indictment division calling for the

accused's committal for trial. The submissions concluded as

follows:

"... it was necessary, in view of the blatant

contradictions between the two 'versions' and the dubious

character of the persons concerned, to exercise the

greatest vigilance before closing the file on this case;

... for example, Piron's behaviour following his release

gave legitimate cause for concern and for fearing further

revelations in this case, which was still undoubtedly very

obscure;

... it has been alleged that there were times when the

investigation and the work of the prosecuting authorities

which should have ensued came to a total halt ..., no

mention being made of the case's infinite complexity, which

was due both to the nature of the case itself and to the

character of the accused;

... Boddaert ... had been involved in a murder ... in

front of his premises committed by Pierre Demain, a few

days before the offence of which he is accused, on

1 July 1980;

... the two persons concerned had just left his premises

and he himself did everything possible to confuse the issue

and mislead the police and judicial authorities as regards

the incident itself and its origins; the motive for this

murder, on which Boddaert's subsequent attitude was

equivocal, still remains a mystery;

... this case reached its conclusion, Pierre Demain being

in detention, in the Liège Assize Court on 18 March 1982;

... having been released on 2 March 1982, Piron was soon

in further trouble ...

... in August, October and November 1982, he was involved

in incidents of violent and threatening behaviour, cases

which have been joined to the case concerning the murder"

- that of Thérèse Hemeleers - "committed on the night of

30-31 May 1983, for which he was sent for trial before the

assize court on 5 June 1985;

... in April 1983, the police wanted him for questioning

in connection with threats made by him to Bustin, the owner

of the 'Lion d'Or', rue Grétry, the very person whom he

accused of denouncing him in the 'Troquet case';

... on the night of 5 to 6 April 1983, he engaged in

threatening behaviour towards a fellow tenant of the

building which he occupied, breaking the windows of his

flat with an air pistol;

... this conduct on the part of Piron and especially his

attitude in April 1983 towards Bustin, the owner of the

'Lion d'Or', one of the last witnesses to have seen Jehin

alive, made it plain that the investigations of which he

was the subject should not be concluded immediately, since

there were still "areas of uncertainty" in the case,

particularly as he, like Boddaert, was no longer in

detention on remand;

... finally, on the night of 30 to 31 May 1983, a casual

female acquaintance, Thérèse Hemeleers, was killed in

Piron's flat; ... having been arrested, he has recently

been committed for trial before the assize court on a

charge of murder;

... it seemed clear that developments in the 'second'

case might affect the 'first', and that the investigating

judges were of necessity bound to compare among other

things the psychiatric reports;

... the investigating judge, Mr Regibeau, having seized

certain documents in connection with the 'second case', in

fact relinquished it on 12 November last, as being relevant

to the 'first case', the investigation of which was being

conducted by the investigating judge Colemonts; this

document was included in the file on the first case ...;

... furthermore, in the interests of the proper

administration of justice and pursuant to Article 62 of the

Criminal Code, which states that the heaviest penalty shall

be imposed when several crimes have been committed, it is

important that these two cases should be taken at the same

assize court session;

..."

B. Committal for trial in the assize court

22. The hearing before the indictment division of the Liège

Court of Appeal which had been set down for 18 July 1985 was

postponed, at the defence's request, until 22 August. As it had

been indicated that the pleadings would be lengthy, the hearing was

adjourned and resumed on 3 September 1985.

23. On 6 September 1985 the indictment division committed the

applicant and Mr Piron for trial in the assize court. It declared

the objections filed on 25 June (see paragraph 20 above)

inadmissible and ruled, in respect of the allegation that a

reasonable time had been exceeded, that it was not for the judicial

investigating authority to determine whether that requirement "has

been or could be complied with".

Relying on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention,

the applicant filed an appeal on points of law, which the Court of

Cassation dismissed on 13 November 1985 on the ground that Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention applied to the trial courts and

not to the judicial organs responsible for the investigation.

C. The trial in the assize court

24. The indictment in the Jehin case, drawn up by the principal

public prosecutor at the Liège Court of Appeal on 1 February 1986,

was served on Mr Boddaert on 7 February.

25. On 11 February the President of the assize court ordered

the joinder of the Jehin and Hemeleers cases and decided that the

proceedings relating to the two murders should be "dealt with at the

same hearing and be the subject of a single judgment".

On 3 March 1986, the first day of the trial, the applicant

- who had been in custody since the previous day by virtue of the

detention order of 24 June 1985 (see paragraph 20 above) - requested

the assize court, first, to stay the proceedings until the European

Commission of Human Rights had expressed its opinion on his

application and, secondly, to revoke the order of 11 February 1986

as it was prejudicial to the rights of the defence and was liable to

prolong the trial and the detention.

26. Sitting without a jury on 4 March 1986, the assize court

dismissed Mr Boddaert's submissions on the following grounds:

"... the question whether the time taken to bring a case

to trial is 'reasonable' must be determined in the light of

the circumstances of each case ...;

... this assessment is only possible once the whole case

has been argued and examined, the witnesses and the experts

have been heard and all the inquiries necessary to

establish the truth carried out;

... the court whose responsibility it is to make this

assessment is the same as that which has to determine the

merits of the accusation; ... under Belgian law in this

instance it is the jury, sitting in private in the absence

of the court; ... in order to make a finding as to the

accused's guilt the jury will assess the weight of

statements and testimony, their consistency, their accuracy

and the extent to which they can still be relied upon in

view of the time which has elapsed since the date of the

event in issue; ... in any case the accused must always be

accorded the benefit of the doubt;"

As regards the joinder of the cases, the assize court noted

as follows:

"... the close connection referred to in Articles 226 and

227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is established where

there is, between two or more offences, a link the nature

of which is such that, in the interests of the proper

administration of justice, they must be tried together and

by the same court;

... Piron is charged inter alia with two offences coming

within the statutory category of serious crime, committed

within the space of less than three years;

... the charges against Piron are interdependent and

related (nature of the offences, same accused, defence

adopted by him) and this justifies upholding the joinder

ordered;"

27. On 14 March 1986 the applicant asked the assize court to

put to the jury a question concerning compliance with the reasonable

time requirement; this request was rejected by a decision of the

same day on the ground that the question was included in that

concerning the accused's guilt.

On the same day the assize court found Mr Boddaert and

Mr Piron guilty, the former of the murder of Jehin, as perpetrator

or joint perpetrator, the latter of the murder of Jehin, as

perpetrator or joint perpetrator, and of the murder of Thérèse

Hemeleers, as perpetrator. It sentenced them respectively to ten

years' imprisonment and to death.

D. The cassation proceedings

28. Mr Boddaert and Mr Piron appealed to the Court of Cassation

against the judgments of 4 and 14 March 1986 (see paragraphs 26-27

above). The applicant stressed, in the first place, that "no

Belgian court [had] agreed, or [had] been placed in a position of

being able, to assess whether or not a reasonable time had been

exceeded" although six years had elapsed between the date of the

offences and the verdict. He further alleged that the reasoning of

the two judgments, delivered within ten days of each other, was

"wholly contradictory".

29. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on

22 October 1986.

On the submission based on the alleged failure to comply

with the "reasonable time" requirement, it noted:

"...

I. The appeal by Nicolas Piron

It is for the trial courts to determine, in the light of

the circumstances of each case, whether the case is heard

within a reasonable time and, if not, to decide what

consequences should ensue;

Neither Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

nor any other provision either of the Convention or of

national law specifies what consequences a trial court

should attach to a finding by it that a reasonable time has

been exceeded; the Convention does not provide that in the

event of a reasonable time being exceeded the sanction is

to be the inadmissibility of the prosecution case, such

inadmissibility being based on an express finding of the

excessive length of the proceedings;

Such consequences must be considered with reference to

the evidence, on the one hand, and to the sanction, on the

other; the excessive length of proceedings may indeed

result in the loss of evidence to the extent that the court

can no longer decide that the offences have been proved;

the exceeding of a reasonable time may also entail

detrimental consequences for the defendant or the accused;

... it is for the jury alone to assess whether the

evidence adduced before it is sufficient to allow it to

form a conviction as to the defendant's guilt ...; then, if

the jury's replies to the questions concerning the

defendant's guilt are in the affirmative and the defendant

contends that the failure to comply with the reasonable

time requirement has entailed for him damage of a personal

or a pecuniary nature, it is for the court together with

the jury to determine what consequences if any, as regards

assessment of sentence, should ensue from such failure, if

failure there has been;

In this instance in his submissions filed in the course

of the investigation of the case, before the President put

the questions deriving from the indictment or the hearing,

the appellant maintained that a reasonable time had been

exceeded, but concluded therefrom solely that there was a

risk of the loss of evidence;

By answering these submissions with the considerations

set out in the grounds of the appeal, the judgment

establishes the legal basis for its decision;

The appellant's submission cannot succeed;

...

II. The appeal by Jean-Claude Boddaert

...

It follows from the reply given in respect of

Nicolas Piron's appeal in so far as it was directed against

the interlocutory judgment of 4 March 1986 that the

submission must fail;

..."

The Court of Cassation added that by sentencing Mr Boddaert

to ten years' imprisonment the assize court had decided "implicitly

but clearly, that [his] allegations concerning the excessive length

of the proceedings were unfounded, either inasmuch as a reasonable

time had not been exceeded or, if it had been, because it was not

necessary to take this into consideration in assessing sentence".

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

30. In his application to the Commission of 13 February 1986

(no. 12919/87), Mr Boddaert alleged primarily that the criminal

proceedings brought against him had exceeded a reasonable time

within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention. He also complained that he had not had adequate time

and facilities for the preparation of his defence for the purposes

of Article 6 para. 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b).

31. On 2 July 1990 the Commission declared the complaint based

on Article 6 para. 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b) inadmissible; on the other

hand, it found that relating to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) to be

admissible.

In its report of 17 April 1991 (made under Article 31)

(art. 31), it expressed the opinion, by nine votes to two, that

there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The

full text of its opinion and the dissenting opinion contained in the

report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: For practical reasons this annex will

appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 235-D

of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the

Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

GOVERNMENT'S FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

32. At the hearing the Government confirmed the submissions set

out in their memorial, in which they asked the Court to hold "that

there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention".

AS TO THE LAW

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)

33. Mr Boddaert relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention, according to which:

"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against

him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a

reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."

He did not criticise the overall length of the criminal

proceedings brought against him; he acknowledged that the

investigation organs - chambre du conseil of the Liège

First-Instance Court and indictment division of the Liège Court of

Appeal - and the trial court - the assize court - had acted with

normal diligence. On the other hand, he complained of a period of

thirty-nine months - from 2 February 1982 to 10 May 1985 - during

which the investigation conducted by the investigating judge was

dormant and indeed was twice entirely suspended (2 June 1982

- 28 June 1983 and 12 March 1984 - 10 May 1985).

34. The Commission agreed with this view in substance, but, in

the Government's opinion, although the proceedings were relatively

lengthy, they could not be considered excessively so, having regard

to the particular circumstances of the case.

A. Period to be taken into consideration

35. The period to be taken into consideration began on

19 July 1980, the date on which the warrant was issued for the

applicant's arrest (see paragraph 10 above). Following a brief

interruption owing to Mr Boddaert's flight to Spain (see

paragraph 10 above), it ended on 22 October 1986, when the Court of

Cassation delivered its judgment (see paragraph 29 above). It thus

lasted six years, two months and twenty-two days.

B. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings

36. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's

case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in

this instance call for an overall assessment.

37. The Court notes at the outset that the present case

originated in a murder following shortly after another murder

committed in the same place (see paragraphs 9-10 above). A number

of persons coming from the same circle were implicated; they

included the applicant.

The inquiry was a difficult one. Initially this was

because of the lack of witnesses and because Mr Boddaert and

Mr Piron accused each other of having committed the crime of which

they were both suspected. Although on 19 January 1982 the joint

report of the pathologist and the ballistics expert provided

information capable of helping to identify the person who had struck

the fatal blow (see paragraph 12 above), "areas of uncertainty"

remained. The investigation, which was pursued without interruption

until 2 February 1982 (see paragraph 13 above), failed to shed light

on the motives for the murder and to establish the personalities of

the accused. It did however reveal the existence of possible links

with other offences (see paragraph 14 above).

38. In addition to this the conduct of Mr Piron, who had been

released on 2 March 1982 (see paragraph 13 above), has to be taken

into account. In August 1982 and April 1983 the latter committed a

number of offences - at least one of them connected with the Jehin

case - in respect of which proceedings were instituted in the Liège

Criminal Court (see paragraph 15 above). At this point the

investigating judge chose to shelve the investigation in case there

were any further developments; there were not, but on 1 June 1983

Mr Piron was accused of the murder of Thérèse Hemeleers (see

paragraph 15 above). The authorities considered that that murder

and the crime of 17 July 1980 were closely linked; availing

themselves of their discretionary power, they decided to await the

outcome of the investigation of the "second case" in order to

complete the file of the first and to hold a joint trial on all the

charges brought against Mr Piron.

In proceeding in this manner they undoubtedly took the risk

of postponing even further Mr Boddaert's committal for trial.

However, the latter had been released on 2 February 1982 (see

paragraph 13 above). Moreover the gravity of the offences in

question and the interdependence of the charges, noted by the assize

court in its judgment of 4 March 1986 (see paragraph 26 above),

could reasonably appear to make it necessary for such a "parallel

progression" of the two cases, which were joined on 11 February 1986

(see paragraph 25 above).

39. Article 6 (art. 6) commands that judicial proceedings be

expeditious, but it also lays down the more general principle of the

proper administration of justice. In the circumstances of the case,

the conduct of the authorities was consistent with the fair balance

which has to be struck between the various aspects of this

fundamental requirement.

40. In conclusion, the Court finds no violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1).

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg,

on 12 October 1992.

Signed: For the President

Jan DE MEYER

Judge

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar