Resolution ResDH(2003)89
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 17 May 2001 (final on 17 August 2001)
in the case of Scheele against Luxembourg
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 June 2003
at the 841st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Scheele case delivered on 17 May 2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 41761/98) against Luxembourg, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 April 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Werner Scheele, a German national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that the length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages was excessive;
Whereas in its judgment of 17 May 2001 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 25 000 Luxembourg francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 5,75% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 17 May 2001, having regard to Luxembourg’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken to accelerate, as far as possible, the examination of the concerned proceedings, and to prevent new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 5 October 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 17 May 2001,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Luxembourg, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2003)89
Information provided by the Government of Luxembourg
during the examination of the Scheele case
by the Committee of Ministers
In order to draw the attention of the authorities concerned to their obligations under the Convention, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was promptly transmitted to the General State Prosecutor on 21 May 2001, as well as to the investigating private office at the tribunal d’arrondissement of Luxembourg.
Concerning individual measures, the Government of Luxembourg recalls that following the finding of a violation, proper diligence has been shown by the tribunal d’arrondissement of Luxembourg in the Scheele case.
Thus, on 20 September 2001, an investigating judge instructed the judicial police (economic and financial section) to establish a summary report, which was finalised on 15 November 2001. Moreover, the applicant was heard by the investigating judge on 6 December 2001, and an interview took place between this judge and the applicant’s lawyer on 22 February 2002, in order to remedy the applicant’s individual situation. On 20 March 2003, the investigating judge held a hearing at which the accused was charged, Mr Scheele being present as civil party to the case. Following this hearing new instructions were issued. In particular it will be necessary to interview certain employees of the applicant’s bank in order to determine how certain funds disappeared to the applicant’s detriment.
The authorities of Luxembourg therefore conclude that these measures will allow the closing of these proceedings as soon as possible, and so consider that they have discharged their commitments towards the applicant.
Concerning general measures, the Government of Luxembourg recalls that measures have been taken in order to deal with the increase in volume of cases brought before the Luxembourg courts and to remedy the excessive length of certain proceedings. The effectiveness of the judicial remedies has in particular been reinforced by the law of 24 July 2001which ordered a programme of recruitment of judges and other staff. This measure, planned for a four-year’ period, foresees a substantial reinforcement of the staff of the tribunal d’arrondissement of Luxembourg as well as the creation of several new chambers.
The Government of Luxembourg considers that, following the above-mentioned developments, Luxembourg has satisfied its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy