003-4916982-6016359

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 315 (2014)   28.10.2014   No remedy in Belgian legal system for complaints   about the length of pending criminal proceedings   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Panju v. Belgium (application no. 18393/09) the   European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:   a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights   taken together with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention,   finding that there was no remedy by which to complain about the length of a pending judicial   investigation in criminal proceedings; and   a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings, which had lasted for more   than eleven years to date.   The case concerned the length of criminal proceedings, which had remained at the judicial   investigation stage after more than eleven years.   The Court found that neither the compensatory remedy nor the preventive remedies invoked by the   Belgian Government could, for the time being, be regarded as an effective remedy by which to   complain about the length of the judicial investigation stage in criminal proceedings.   As regards the existence of a compensatory remedy, the Court noted that the case-law of the Court   of Cassation (concerning applications to establish the non-contractual liability of the State,   introduced in 2006) had not yet been applied. As to the preventive remedies, it noted that none of   the measures invoked was specifically directed at delays in the proceedings and that the reason why   no such measure had yet been taken by the Indictments Division of its own motion was perhaps   because they did not address the difficulties experienced by the Brussels public prosecutor’s office,   and, except in two specific situations, the courts did not have the power to impose penalties for   proceedings exceeding a reasonable time.   The Court further found that the main explanation for the length of the proceedings against Mr   Panju lay in the manner in which the authorities had conducted them and not in the applicant’s own   behaviour. In addition, as regards the problem of backlogs in the courts, the Court observed that it   was for States to organise their judicial systems in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of the   Convention.   Principal facts   The applicant, Zulfikarali Panju, is a Canadian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bukavu   (Democratic Republic of the Congo).   He was arrested on 19 November 2002 on suspicion of illegal trafficking in gold and money   laundering. The 50 kg of gold he was carrying at the time was confiscated and his Belgian bank   accounts frozen. He was later granted conditional release and during the year 2002 five other   individuals were charged in the same case.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   In 2005, 2006 and 2007 Mr Panju lodged three applications with the Indictments Division of the   Court of Appeal of Brussels under the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining about the length of   the proceedings against him. The court, after finding that the period was not abnormal in view of the   scope and complexity of the case, acknowledged that Mr Panju was rightly complaining about delays   in the proceedings. However, it pointed out that although it had jurisdiction to verify the proper   conduct of judicial investigations it did not have the power to instruct the public prosecutor to make   his submissions. It also noted that the Principal Public Prosecutor, after describing the difficult   working conditions in the Brussels prosecution service, had apologised for the delay in the   proceedings and had undertaken to finalise them as soon as possible.   In 2007 Mr Panju brought proceedings in order to obtain the lifting of the confiscation measures on   the ground, in particular, that the reasonable time provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the European   Convention on Human Rights had been exceeded. His action was dismissed and the Indictments   Division took the view that, on account of Mr Panju’s own contribution to the delay he was   complaining of, by lodging numerous applications, he was in no position to complain that the   proceedings were protracted. It reiterated that observation in subsequent decisions.   In 2011 the applicant obtained the lifting of the confiscation measures on the ground, in particular,   that the reasonable time provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been exceeded. The   Indictments Division observed that the freezing of bank accounts and the confiscations had been   annulled with final effect. It took the view that the argument about the reasonable time being   exceeded had become without object in view of the annulment of the confiscations at issue.   According to the information in the case file, the judicial investigation is still pending.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) the applicant complained about the lack in the Belgian legal system of an effective   remedy by which to complain about the length of the judicial investigation against him and alleged   that the criminal proceedings against him had not been conducted within a reasonable time.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 March 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Guido Raimondi (Italy), President,   Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),   András Sajó (Hungary),   Helen Keller (Switzerland),   Paul Lemmens (Belgium),   Robert Spano (Iceland),   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark),   and also Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 13 combined with Article 6 § 1   The Court found that the applicant was entitled to an effective remedy, as his complaint about the   length of the judicial investigation stage lasting more than eleven years was “arguable”. It then   examined the two possible types of remedy invoked by the Belgian Government, the compensatory   remedy and the preventive remedies.   The Court had found in 2007, in a case concerning the length of civil proceedings2, that an action to   establish the non-contractual liability of the State, introduced in 2006 by the Court of Cassation3,   had acquired a sufficient degree of certainty from 28 March 2007. The Court had then preferred, in   accordance with its case-law, to leave a certain time to the Belgian authorities to “test” this new   remedy, finding in particular that there was no reason why it could not apply to complaints about   the length of criminal proceedings. However, in the present case the Government had not cited a   single example of a judicial decision to illustrate the application of this case-law. They had thus failed   to show that the remedy met the effectiveness requirements of Article 13, and in particular that it   functioned without excessive delay and offered an appropriate level of redress. Consequently, the   compensatory remedy could not, to date, be regarded as an effective remedy by which to complain   about the excessive length of the judicial investigation stage in criminal proceedings, within the   meaning of Article 13.   As regards the preventive remedies, the Government had explained that Belgian law offered a   number of mechanisms for the purpose of reviewing the length of the proceedings at the judicial   investigation stage, including the remedy provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure4. The Court,   after finding in the past, in certain cases against Belgium, that this remedy had not been effective,   had taken note5 in 2010 of the development in the Court of Cassation’s case-law. In a judgment of   April 2008 the Court of Cassation had acknowledged that it had to be possible for any breach of an   individual’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time to be established at all stages of criminal   proceedings, even during the judicial investigation and that, consequently, the Indictments Division   had a duty to review, of its own motion or on the application of one of the parties, the lawfulness of   the proceedings referred to it, including their duration.   The Court expressed reservations, however, as to the effectiveness of such a remedy. First, while   admitting that the ensuing directions could have the effect of expediting the proceedings, if they   were complied with immediately, the Court noted that none of the measures in question was   specifically directed at the delay complained of. Unlike, for example, the system in Spain, Portugal or   Slovenia, it was not established that in the Belgian system the Indictments Division could fix time-   limits for the completion of procedural acts, order the investigating judge to set a date for a hearing   or to close the investigation, or decide that the case should be given priority treatment.   Secondly, the reason why none of those measures had yet been taken by the Indictments Division of   its own motion was perhaps because they did not address the lack of staff and structural deficiencies   in the Brussels public prosecutor’s office (shortcomings identified by the Principal Public Prosecutor   himself). Thirdly, the Court noted that, except in the situations where unreasonable length resulted   in the inadmissibility of the proceedings or the time-barring of the prosecution because defence   rights had been irretrievably prejudiced, the courts did not have the power to impose penalties for   proceedings exceeding a reasonable time. The preventive remedies invoked by the Government did   not therefore constitute effective remedies within the meaning of Article 13; the Court thus found   that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 1   The period to be taken into consideration for the calculation of the length of the proceedings started   on 19 November 2002, the date when Mr Panju was arrested and informed that he was suspected of   illegal trafficking in gold and money laundering. The proceedings had lasted for eleven years and   nine months, as according to the information in the case file the judicial investigation was still   pending.   Depauw v. Belgium, decision of 15 May 2007.   Under Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code.   Articles 136 and 136 bis.   Tyteca and Others v. Belgium, decision of 24 August 2010.   The Court took the view that the complexity of the case did not suffice to explain why the criminal   proceedings against the applicant had already taken such a long time. As regards Mr Panju’s   conduct, which, according to the Indictments Division, had been the cause of the length of the   proceedings, the Court found that it did not explain the entire length, even though the Court agreed   that between 2007 and 2008 the applicant had contributed to the prolonging of the judicial   investigation by using acceleratory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards the   problem of backlogs in the courts, the Court observed that it was for States to organise their judicial   systems in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of the Convention.   The Court found that the main explanation for the length of the proceedings lay in the manner in   which the authorities had conducted them and accordingly held that there had been a violation of   Article 6 § 1.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   Mr Panju had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction. The Court therefore found that it did not   need to make any award on that basis.   Separate opinion   Judge Spano expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 3 90 21 58 77)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4