[] GAST and POPP v. GERMANY Right to a fair trial – no violation Article 6, Section 1 The duty to organise judicial systems in such a way that the courts can hear cases within a reasonable time applies also to a Constitutional Court. However its role as guardian of the Constitution makes it particularly necessary for a Constitutional Court sometimes to take into account other considerations than the mere chronological order in which cases are entered on the list, such as the nature of a case and its importance in political and social terms. Furthermore while Article 6 requires that judicial proceedings be expeditious, it also lays emphasis on the more general principle of the proper administration of justice. It was reasonable for the German Federal Constitutional Court to have grouped the applicants’ cases so as to obtain a comprehensive view of the legal issues arising from convictions of espionage and treason following German unification. In a judgment delivered on February in the case of Gast and Popp v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article , Section (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This judgment is not final. Pursuant to Article , Section of the Convention, within three months from the date of the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. 1. Principal facts The applicants, Gabriele Gast and Dieter Popp, are both German citizens. They were born in and and live in Neuried (Germany) and Bonn (Germany) respectively. The applicants were convicted in criminal proceedings of committing espionage against the Federal Republic of Germany on behalf of the former German Democratic Republic. The first applicant appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court on July . The second applicant appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court on August . The proceedings of the applicants’ and other similar cases were postponed as the Second Division of the Federal Constitutional Court envisaged rendering a leading decision in some test cases submitted by the Berlin Court of Appeal in July . On May the Second Division of the Federal [] Constitutional Court rendered the leading decision. On May the Second Section of the Second Division of the Federal Constitutional Court, in separate decisions, refused to admit the first and second applicants’ constitutional complaints, referring inter alia to the leading decision of May . The first applicant received the decision on June . The second applicant’s counsel received the decision on June , and the second applicant himself on June . 2. Procedure of the Court The case originated in an application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on May . The Commission declared the application partly admissible on October . In its report of May , it expressed the opinion, by twenty votes to eleven, that there had been no violation of Article , Section of the Convention. The case was referred by the Commission to the Court on November . In accordance with the transitional provisions of Protocol No. to the Convention, a panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided that the case should be examined by a Chamber constituted within the First Section of the Court. 3. Summary of the judgment Complaint The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. They alleged a violation of Article , Section of the Convention. Decision of the Court Article 6, Section 1 of the Convention Applicability The question arose whether Article , Section applies to proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court under its criminal head. The Court recalled that according to its well-established case-law on this issue, the relevant test in determining whether Constitutional Court proceedings may be taken into account in assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is whether the result of the Constitutional Court proceedings is capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute before the ordinary courts. It followed that Constitutional Court proceedings do not in principle fall outside the scope of Article , Section of the Convention. .