[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF MEIDL v. AUSTRIA
(Application
no. 33951/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 April 2011
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Meidl v. Austria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Christos Rozakis,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 March 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 33951/05) against the Republic
of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mr Walter Meidl (“the
applicant”), on 30 August 2005.
- The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr H.
Sperk, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The Austrian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H.
Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal
Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings
against him had lasted an unreasonably long time and that the
proceedings were unfair.
- On
2 April 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Salzburg.
- The
case concerns criminal charges against the applicant and other
persons for participating in a so-called “carousel fraud”
scheme. Such a scheme, in which at least three seemingly unconnected
undertakings in different countries cooperate to defraud the
exchequer, entails selling cheap products at an artificially high
price to a domestic trader. The seller charges turnover tax on the
price and would normally have to pay the tax to the exchequer. The
trader would then export the goods. Since export sales are exempt
from turnover tax, the trader could claim reimbursement of the
turnover tax he had paid to the seller. However, the seller had never
paid the tax to the exchequer, and – in cases where the scheme
is successful – the trader receives reimbursement, and the
seller receives turnover tax he has not paid to the exchequer. The
foreign buyer often sends the cheap products back to the seller and a
new circle begins, hence the name “carousel fraud”.
- The
applicant was exporting goods to countries outside the EU and used a
limited liability company (Mirabell Bequemschuh & Beautytrend
Versandgesellschaft m.b.H, hereinafter “MV”) for the
transactions. Apparently the applicant’s brother was the chief
executive of MV and the applicant had authority to act on MV’s
behalf. The applicant had started the transactions after being
contacted by Mr W.R., an Austrian residing in Brazil, in April 1993.
The applicant at first exported royal bee jelly to Brazil; later on
he exported computer software parts, filtering devices and
electrodes. He quit these transactions in spring 1994 and continued
trading in perfume oils. His last transactions were carried out in
August 1995.
- The
first tax examination with regard to turnover tax was carried out by
the Salzburg City Tax Authority (Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt) in
November 1993; according to the applicant, no irregularities were
detected by the authority.
- In
February and March 1994, the Salzburg City Tax Authority carried out
another examination of the company’s turnover tax conduct and
decided to extend its examination to the entire company (MV); the
officials told the applicant that some irregularities regarding
turnover tax with MV’s suppliers had occurred.
- On
18 May 1995 and 22 May 1995 the Corporate Tax Authority (Finanzamt
für Körperschaften) submitted a statement of facts to
the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Vienna concerning suspicion
of tax fraud committed by eight persons. Apparently the applicant was
not among these eight suspects. On 23 May 1995 the Regional Criminal
Court authorised the Corporate Tax Authority to investigate.
- On
16 August 1995 a search warrant for MV was issued – it appears
that since the company had moved to another address, on the same day
the Tax Authority applied for further search warrants for MV. The
searches were carried out on 16 and 17 August 1995.
- On
23 August 1995 the applicant was questioned as a suspect by the Tax
Authority about his business and sales of low-grade products.
- Apparently,
in the meantime the Tax Authority had seized perfume oils at Mr
W.R.’s mother’s house; an expert was asked to carry out a
chemical analysis of samples of the perfume oil and to give an expert
opinion on the quality and the value of the oils.
- The
applicant was questioned again on 7 September 1995 and on 13 October
1995. Another search of storage rooms and offices of MV and the
applicant took place on 19 September 1995.
- On
9 February 1996 the expert delivered his opinion about the quality of
the perfume oils. He stated that most of the oils were of low
quality, while some samples were of slightly higher quality.
- On
19 November 1996 MV, represented by the applicant, applied for access
to the Salzburg Tax Authority file in connection with pending appeal
proceedings. On 20 November 1996 the request was rejected, as there
were no appeal proceedings pending since the appeal had been
submitted out of time. On 18 March 1997 MV, represented by counsel,
applied for access to the file of the Salzburg Tax Authority. On 3
April 1997 the file was inspected on behalf of MV and 113 copies of
documents were made.
- On
27 February 1997 the applicant’s counsel applied to have the
file concerning the criminal proceedings transmitted to the Salzburg
District Court (Bezirksgericht) to be inspected there. The
request was not complied with.
- By
a letter dated 28 May 1997 the Tax Authority sent information on tax
evasion (Abgabenhinterziehung) and forgery of protected
documents (Fälschung besonders geschützter Urkunden)
concerning several suspects, including the applicant, to the Regional
Criminal Court; apparently the charges of forgery did not affect the
applicant.
19. On
17 August 1998 the applicant’s counsel had applied for access
to the criminal court file. By a letter of 19 August 1998 the Vienna
Regional Criminal Court informed the applicant’s counsel that
the file had been with the Vienna Public Prosecutor since 14 July
1997.
- After
the final statements of facts had been supplemented in September 1999
by the Tax Authority, the Public Prosecutor ordered investigations on
15 November 1999. The statement of facts was then supplemented twice,
on 24 November and 28 December 1999.
- On
3 March 2000 the Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the
applicant and eighteen others on suspicion of several counts of tax
evasion, fraud, money laundering and of forming a criminal
organisation. The indictment was served on the applicant’s
counsel at some point after 18 April 2000.
- Four
persons accused in the indictment lodged complaints against the
indictment in May and early June 2000; their complaints were rejected
by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court on 1 December 2000. Two further
persons accused in the indictment lodged complaints in April 2001.
Their complaints were rejected by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court
on 25 June 2001. The indictment, at that point having been served on
all accused persons and after all their complaints had been dealt
with, became final.
- On
7 September 2001 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court set the date for
the trial for 12 November 2001.
- On
1 October 2001 the applicant’s counsel notified the court of
his power of attorney and was given permission to inspect the file.
On 2 October 2001 the applicant’s counsel inspected the
file.
25. On
16 October 2001 applicant’s counsel submitted a statement and a
request to take evidence and for further witnesses to be heard. Among
these witnesses were the lawyer, an accountant and a bank director
who had advised the applicant on several aspects of the first
transactions.
- The
first hearing was held on 12 November 2001 before the Vienna Regional
Criminal Court sitting with two professional and two lay judges; in
total the hearings took thirty-five days, spread over almost one
year. The court heard several experts and numerous witnesses as well
as the investigators from the Tax Authorities as witnesses.
- The
applicant revoked the power of attorney for his defence lawyer on 16
September 2002. The court was notified of this the following day.
Subsequently the applicant was granted legal aid and from 18
September 2002 onward the applicant was represented by legal aid
counsel.
- On
20 September 2002 the verdict was pronounced, and the applicant was
found guilty of fraud and attempted fraud, evasion of taxes and
participation in a criminal organisation. He was sentenced to two
years’ imprisonment and a fine of 400,000 euros (EUR) with six
months’ imprisonment in default. The court found as mitigating
circumstances that the applicant had no previous criminal record and
parts of his acts had been attempts; another mitigating circumstance
was the lapse of time since the commission of the offences. The court
found as aggravating circumstances that the applicant committed
several crimes, was a leading figure in the crimes and had committed
a crime causing a high degree of damage (such as aggravated fraud)
and on a professional basis.
- The
court held that from May 1993 to August 1995 the applicant had
exported various counterfeit products or products of low quality at a
high price and knowingly participated in a so-called “carousel
fraud”, at first as an exporter of the goods, later on as an
intermediary trader. The applicant was found guilty of recruiting
other unsuspecting companies to export goods and thus to participate
in the carousel fraud; when turnover tax was no longer reimbursed,
the companies sustained damage amounting to the turnover tax they had
paid to the seller of the goods. By integrating these companies into
the scheme, the companies were also induced to unknowingly submit
false turnover tax reimbursement claims. The applicant was also found
guilty of tax evasion, as he had not declared turnover tax for the
transactions where he had acted as an intermediary.
- As
regards the application to hear further witnesses, the court held
that it was not necessary to hear further witnesses, as the evidence
established by documents and the witnesses’ and accused
persons’ statements was sufficient to establish the accused
persons’ guilt. Hearing W.R., who was fleeing from prosecution
and thus could not be heard for practical reasons, could not change
the assessment of the evidence the court already had at its disposal.
- The
applicant stated he intended to appeal and lodge a plea of nullity to
the Supreme Court. The first-instance judgment, consisting of more
than 450 pages, was served on the applicant’s counsel on 29
October 2003.
- The
applicant’s counsel applied for an extension of the period to
lodge the remedies, which was granted. The plea of nullity and the
appeal were lodged on 25 January 2004.
- The
Supreme Court issued a first verdict on 3 March 2005, in which it
rejected the applicant’s plea of nullity. It held that the
applicant’s complaint that the Regional Criminal Court had
refused to take further evidence was ill-founded, since the
applications had not been made in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The
Supreme Court adjudicated the applicant’s and the public
prosecutors’ appeal, passing judgment on 7 April 2005 after a
hearing had been held on 6 April 2005. The Supreme Court increased
the prison term to three years and the fine to approximately EUR
2,700,000 with one year’s imprisonment in case of default. The
decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 25 April
2005.
- The
applicant served his prison sentence from 15 April 2005 to 12 October
2007. The applicant petitioned the President of Austria and was
pardoned by a decision of 10 March 2008 and the President released
him from paying the fine upon a conditional release and three years’
probation.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §1 OF THE
CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE DURATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained of a violation of his right to have the criminal
charges against him determined within a reasonable time. He relied on
Article 6 of the Convention, which, as far as material for the
present application is concerned, reads as follows:
“1. In the determination ... of any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law. ...
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence
has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language
which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of his defence;
...
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; ...
.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic
remedies as he did not lodge an application under Section 91 of the
Court Organisation Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) to set a
time-limit, which the Court had held to be an effective remedy
against delays in proceedings.
- The
Government pointed out that the applicant specifically complained
that the trial had lasted for one year and that it had taken the
presiding judge of the Regional Criminal Court another year to
prepare the written version of the judgment. The applicant could have
lodged applications under Section 91 of the Court Organisation Act to
reduce the duration of proceedings.
- The
applicant argued that lodging an application under Section 91 of the
Court Organisation Act is not possible against delays caused by the
Tax Authorities, the Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Court. Thus,
for the first five years, from 1995 to 2000, when the indictment was
issued, he did not have a remedy to speed up proceedings. The
applicant also contests the effectiveness of the remedy, as there is
no sanction provided for a dilatory authority.
- The Court reiterates that it held in numerous cases
that the application under Section 91 of the Court Organisation Act
is in principle an effective remedy against court delays, both in the
context of civil proceedings (see Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1),
no. 23459/94, § 25, ECHR 2001 I) as well as in the context
of criminal proceedings (see Talirz v. Austria (dec.), no.
37323/97, 11 September 2001). However, the Court also held that the
effectiveness of a remedy to accelerate proceedings may depend on
whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings
as a whole (see Holzinger,
cited
above,
§ 22). Thus, where proceedings include a substantial
period during which there is no remedy to accelerate proceedings, a
request under Section 91 cannot be considered an effective remedy
(see mutatis
mutandis, Holzinger
(no. 2) v. Austria, no. 28898/95, §§
21-22).
- The
Court notes that as far as the applicant is concerned the preliminary
investigations lasted from 23 August 1995 to the date the indictment
was served on him in April 2000. During this time, the Court accepts
that the applicant did not have the opportunity to lodge an
application under Section 91 of the Court Organisation Act.
- The
Court therefore finds that even if the applicant had lodged the
remedy while the proceedings were pending before the courts the
effect on its overall length would have been insignificant. It thus
rejects the argument that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic
remedies.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
applicant complained that the overall duration of proceedings was
unreasonably long. He argued that the trial before the first-instance
court had lasted for thirty-five days, spread over almost a year, and
ended on 20 September 2002, when the judgment was pronounced. The
presiding judge needed over a year to finish the written judgment.
The proceedings before the Supreme Court took more than another year.
- In
the Government’s view, the proceedings did not last an
unreasonably long time. The case was characterised by the fact that
numerous real companies as well as sham companies were involved. It
concerned two phases of transactions in which the export prices
amounted to more than EUR 15,000,000 and EUR 27,000,000, and reached
dimensions hitherto unknown in Austria. The enormous scope of the
case is evidenced by the indictment, comprising 194 pages, and the
judgment of the Regional Criminal Court, comprising about 450 pages,
and the fact that sixty-three witnesses were heard and the hearings
lasted for thirty-five days.
- The
Government argued that the preliminary proceedings had taken up a
large part of the time of the proceedings. The reason for this was
the considerable number of accused, the suspicions against whom only
came to light gradually and in the course of investigation, the
complexity of the facts and the need to obtain expert opinions.
- The
Government conceded that the applicant was not required to cooperate
in the investigations against him, yet the Government argued that
applicant did not help speed up the investigations either.
- According
to the Government, there had never been any significant delays by the
authorities, neither had the applicant complained about periods of
inactivity on the part of the authorities. One delay had occurred
when the indictment of 3 March 2000 could not immediately be served
on all the accused, but it took until April 2001 to serve the
indictment on all the accused. Some of the accused also lodged
objections to the indictment, which also had to be decided upon. The
delay in the drafting of the written judgment was also due to the
broad scope of the case and the necessity to set out the facts and
the proceedings on the taking of evidence adequately in the judgment.
The broad scope of the case is also evidenced by the fact that the
period of time to lodge remedies against the judgment was extended.
- Furthermore,
the long duration of investigations was taken into consideration as a
mitigating factor when setting the penalties. The applicant was
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for aggravated fraud,
while the law provides for up to ten years’ imprisonment; he
was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for tax evasion,
whereas the law provides for a prison sentence of up to two years.
- The
applicant stressed that his conduct had never prolonged the
proceedings. He argued that he could not be blamed for two of the
factors leading to a certain delay, namely the fact that the
indictment could not be served on all the accused immediately, and
the fact that some of the accused had lodged objections.
- Also,
during the thirty-five days of hearings in the trial, only a fraction
of the time concerned the charges against him and the few
transactions carried out by him. The applicant also argued that the
proceedings against the other eighteen defendants could have been
held separately, which would have led to shorter preliminary
investigations and a shorter trial against him.
- Replying
to the Government’s argument that the lengthy duration of
proceedings had been taken into consideration as a mitigating
circumstance, the applicant argued that this was not the case, since
the Supreme Court had significantly raised the penalty.
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the
case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s
case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of
the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see Pélissier
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR
1999 II).
- The
proceedings began when the applicant was first questioned as a
suspect on 23 August 1995. They ended when the Supreme Court decision
was served on the applicant’s counsel on 25 April 2005. The
proceedings thus lasted for nine years and eight months and the case
was heard at two levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court is aware of the difficulties States encounter in conducting
criminal proceedings relating to white-collar crime (see, for
instance, Rösslhuber v. Austria, no. 32869/96, § 30,
28 November 2000, and Hoffen v. Liechtenstein, no. 5010/04, §
49, 27 July 2006), as such cases often involve very complex matters
and a large number of suspects. Whereas it often appears reasonable
to group such cases and try all the members of a fraudulent tax
scheme in one trial, it might also be considered reasonable to
separate the cases to speed up proceedings against the accused (see
Kemmache v. France (no. 1 and no. 2), 27 November 1991, §
70, Series A no. 218, and, mutatis mutandis, Petrov v.
Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 33, 22 May 2008).
- The
Court notes that it took the authorities four years and almost seven
months to issue a bill of indictment. It further notes that although
final information was sent to the Regional Criminal Court on 28 May
1997, and the file had been with the Public Prosecutor since 14 July
1997, it was only on 3 March 2000, after the final information had
been supplemented three times, that the indictment was issued.
- The
hearings before the Regional Criminal Court were held over a period
of a little more than ten months, and the written judgment was served
on the applicant’s counsel more than a year later. The Supreme
Court dealt with the remedies lodged against the judgment within one
year and three months.
- The
Court finds that the applicant’s conduct did not give rise to
any delays in the proceedings.
- While
the Court accepts that the case was complex, and considers that the
court hearings at the trial and at the appeal stages were held within
a reasonable time-limit, the overall duration of proceedings exceeded
what is to be considered “reasonable” in the context of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly due to the
duration of the investigation phase. Therefore, there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the
duration of the proceedings.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AS
REGARDS LACK OF ACCESS TO THE FILE AND AS REGARDS ADEQUATE TIME AND
FACILITIES FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE DEFENCE
- The
applicant complained that his right to access to the file as provided
in Article 6 of the Convention had been violated, and that he did not
have adequate time for the preparation of his defence, as provided
for in Article 6 (3) b of the Convention.
- The
Government contested that argument.
Admissibility
1. Requests for inspection of the file before the
Salzburg Tax Authorities
- The
Government argued that the applicant’s complaints were
unsubstantiated and partly related to the tax proceedings of MV,
represented by the applicant, before the Salzburg Tax Authorities.
The requests of 19 November 1996 and 18 March 1997 concerned MV
and the assessment of taxes. The Government maintained that these
requests for access to the file were not connected to the criminal
proceedings at issue.
- The
applicant repeated his argument that he did not have full access to
the file.
- The
Court notes that the request of 19 November 1996 for access to file
related to an appeal which the applicant had lodged in the tax
proceedings, to which Article 6 of the Convention does not apply. The
request of 18 March 1997 was granted, and there is thus no indication
that the applicant’s defence rights in respect of the criminal
proceedings were curtailed. The Court therefore rejects this part of
the complaint as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article
35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
2. Requests for inspection of the file of the Criminal
Court
- The
Government stated that the applicant’s counsel’s first
request of 27 February 1997 for transmission of the file to the
Salzburg District Court was not complied with. The request of 17
August 1998 was also not complied with, as the file had been with the
Public Prosecutor since 14 July 1997.
- The
Government argued that the applicant’s counsel neither
requested a copy of the file, nor, taking into account the cost of a
copy of the file, did he apply for legal aid. The applicant was later
represented by another lawyer, and the lawyer applied for inspection
of the file on 1 October 2001. The request was granted, and on 2
October 2001 the applicant’s counsel inspected the file.
- As
the first hearing in the trial was held on 12 November 2001, about
six weeks after the applicant’s counsel had inspected the file,
the Government maintained that the applicant had sufficient time to
prepare his defence.
- The
applicant maintained that he was barred from having access to the
file until October 2001, and when his counsel was granted access the
file was so voluminous that he did not have enough time to prepare
his defence adequately.
- The
Court notes that the applicant had access to the file six weeks
before the trial began. Although the case was complex, it cannot be
said that this period was too short to allow the applicant to prepare
his defence. The Court thus rejects this part of the complaint as
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a)
of the Convention.
III. FURTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention that the judge presiding over the trial before the
Regional Criminal Court was biased, and that the reasons contained in
the judgment were not sufficient to convict him and they did not take
his arguments into consideration. Relying on Article 6 § 2, he
complained that the judge had viewed him as guilty even before his
guilt had been established. The applicant further complained that the
court had failed to ensure that the applicant’s legal-aid
counsel’s applications of 16 October 2001 to take further
evidence, in accordance with domestic procedural requirements, were
responded to, alleging a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c). Relying
on Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complained
that the evidence he had asked to be heard on 16 October 2001 would
have proved his innocence.
- The Court finds that in the light of all the material
in its possession, to the extent that these complaints are
substantiated and fall within its competence, the complaints do not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights guaranteed under
the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the
application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the
Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The applicant claimed EUR 10,413,393.24 in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 382,600 for non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that there was no causal link between the pecuniary
damage alleged and any alleged violation of the Convention.
Furthermore, some of the items the applicant claimed to be pecuniary
damage concerned the applicant’s wife’s company, as well
as his brother, who had guaranteed a loan for him. Also, the
Government argued that there was no causal link between any alleged
violation of the Convention and the non-pecuniary damage claimed.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged. It therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 73,127.32 for costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 102,269.50 for those incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government argued that the applicant had failed to furnish proof of
the costs for domestic proceedings. They also argued that the claim
for costs for the proceedings before the Court was excessive.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
Regard being had to the fact that the applicant had been granted
legal aid in the amount of EUR 850 by the Court, the Court awards the
applicant EUR 1,150, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant on this amount for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the criminal proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,000 (eight
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,150 (one thousand one hundred and
fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicant,
in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
