Published on 20 November 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 16381/23
Junior Vladimir SANTANA DE REGLA
against the Netherlands
lodged on 12 April 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 and whether, on this point, he had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
The criminal proceedings started on 19 April 2019 when the applicant was arrested for the transportation of cocaine. On 24 May 2019 he was acquitted by the Regional Court of Rotterdam. On 21 April 2021 the Court of Appeal of the Hague, giving judgment in abridged form, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two months imprisonment and a fine of 1,740 EUR.
The applicant filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 29 April 2021. Although the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulate that the Court of Appeal will supplement its abridged judgment with a statement of the contents of the means of evidence within 8 months, this was only made available on 4 July 2022. Exceeding this time‑limit is not as such sanctioned under domestic law. On 11 August 2022 the applicant submitted his grounds of appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, including a complaint that, on account of the delay caused by the late submission of the supplement of the abridged judgment, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. On this complaint the Supreme Court noted in its judgment of 14 February 2023 that:
“The ground of appeal is well-founded. In light of the two-month prison sentence imposed, the Supreme Court considers that the acknowledgement that the reasonable time limit has been exceeded is sufficient, and there is no reason to attach any other legal consequence to that finding.”
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 Supreme Court acknowledged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, may the applicant still claim to be a victim, 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)?
3. Having regard to the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the finding that the reasonable time had been exceeded was sufficient, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy