GAST and POPP - Germany (Nº 29357/95)
Judgment 25.2.2000 [Section I]

Facts: The applicants were arrested in 1990 on suspicion of espionage on behalf of the former German Democratic Republic and convicted in separate criminal proceedings in 1992. The lodged constitutional complaints with the Federal Constitutional Court in August 1992, but processing of the complaints was suspended because the Second Division of the court envisaged rendering a leading decision in certain test cases. In March 1994 it ordered the preparation of an expert opinion on questions of public international law. It rendered its decision in May 1995, concluding in particular that the prosecution after reunification of those who had spied for the German Democratic Republic in the Federal Republic was unobjectionable. As a result, the court refused to admit the applicants' complaints. The applicants, who had been released in 1994, were notified in June 1995. They complained about the length of the Constitutional Court proceedings.

Law: Article 6(1): Applicability - The proceedings were directly related to the question of the accusations of espionage being well-founded. In the event of a successful constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court quashes the impugned decision and refers the matter back to the competent court and if legislation is declared void a reopening of criminal proceedings is permissible. In this case, the constitutional proceedings were a further stage of the criminal proceedings and the consequences could be decisive for the convicted persons. While the applicants' complaints were rejected in preliminary proceedings, the court could only do so after having given its decision in the test cases. Article 6 therefore applies.

Compliance - The proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted about two years and ten months and two years and nine months respectively. The legal issues examined in the test leading decision were on the whole complex. The applicants did not cause any delays. As for the court, the duty of the State to organise the judicial system to ensure that the courts can meet the requirements of Article 6 applies to a Constitutional Court but cannot be construed in the same way as for an ordinary court: a Constitutional Court's role as guardian of the Constitution makes it particularly necessary for it sometimes to take into account considerations other than mere chronological order of cases, such as the nature of a case and its importance in political and social terms. It was reasonable for the Federal Constitutional Court to have grouped cases dealing with espionage and to have given priority to certain other cases with serious political and social implications. Although the applicants were serving their prison sentences, their punishment did not cause them prejudice to such an extent as to impose on the court concerned a duty to deal with the cases as a matter of very great urgency. Moreover, they were released in 1994. Any delays that occurred do not appear substantial enough for the length of the proceedings to have exceeded a "reasonable time", having regard to the fact that the earlier proceedings had lasted only about one year and ten months and two years and three months respectively.