CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9342B94C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:23pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .s50DCB1E7 { width:204.8pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s57395D7A { height:28.35pt } .sC57FC9DE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9523CD3C { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8EC4D31 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .sF295F5C1 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .s5B8637C { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sED1A34C5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s57544627 { height:61.2pt } .s46046D70 { height:48.25pt } .sD4B5C457 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super } .s43BBE875 { height:201.25pt } .s870E2762 { height:96.4pt } .sA4CB3B69 { height:181.4pt } .s67FEDBA { height:119.05pt } .sA29D089D { height:82.2pt } .s29BE6C23 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt }       FOURTH SECTION                 CASE OF OLIVEIRA MODESTO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL   (Application no. 68445/10)                 JUDGMENT               STRASBOURG   29 January 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Oliveira Modesto and Others v. Portugal, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Egidijus Kūris, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 68445/10) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 251 Portuguese nationals listed in the Annex (“the applicants”), on 17 November 2010. 2.     The first applicant represented all the applicants and was authorised to do so by the President of the former Second Section of the Court, in accordance with Rule 36 § 3 of the Rules of Court. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M.F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General. 3.     On 22 March 2012 the Government were given notice of the application. 4.     The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are former employees and heirs of former employees of company F. - C.M.E. S.A. (hereinafter “company F.”), which owned a factory making engines and electric alternators in Aveiro. The company experienced a series of financial problems in 1985, leading to it being unable to continue paying salaries to its staff. A.     Insolvency and judicial liquidation proceedings 6.     On 4 October 1994 the Coimbra Court of Appeal declared company   F. insolvent. On 8 May 1995 the case was remitted to the Aveiro Court. 7 .     By a decision that was made public on 3 July 1995 the Aveiro Court ordered that creditors wishing to declare their claims ( reclamação de créditos ) should be summoned. 8 .     Having learnt that a site division and urban development plan ( plano de pormenor ) encompassing the land of company F. had been drawn up by the municipality of Aveiro, former employees of the company, including some of the applicants, applied to the Aveiro Court on 12 December 1997, requesting that it wait for the plan to be approved before ordering the sale of company F.’s assets. They hoped that the plan would lead to a rise in the land’s value and thus increase the prospects of their recovering what they were owed. 9 .     On 24 March 2000 the Aveiro Court issued a decision on the classification of the various claims ( sentença de graduação de créditos ). Some of the creditors appealed against that decision to the Coimbra Court of Appeal. 10 .     In a decision of 7 November 2000 the Aveiro Court authorised the suspension of the sale (see paragraph 8 above) until the approval of the site division and urban development plan. 11 .     In a judgment of 23 January 2001 the Coimbra Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on the classification of the former employees’ claims. On 9 February 2001 the first applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice. 12 .     On 19 February 2001 the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal (applicant no.   199 in the appended table) lodged an application with the Aveiro Court, seeking to register a claim against the insolvent company. 13 .     On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment confirming the classification of claims by the Coimbra Court of Appeal (see paragraphs 9 and 11 above). 14.     On 27 November 2002 the judicial liquidator informed the Aveiro Court that he had suspended his activities following another court’s decision. In a decision of 29 January 2003 the court appointed a new liquidator. 15.     On 15 April 2009, as part of a redraft of the court-distribution map (setting out the geographical areas over which courts had jurisdiction), the proceedings were transferred to the Aveiro Commercial Court. 16 .     On 29 July 2009 the municipality of Aveiro, the body of creditors and company G. entered into an agreement for the exchange of land between company F., company G., a neighbouring company, and the Aveiro municipality. 17.     On an unspecified date a part of the land measuring 17,629.10 sq.   m and a separate plot were put up for sale. 18.     On 14 July 2011 a session at which offers to purchase could be made took place, and no offers were received. The court ordered the judicial liquidator to submit the documentation concerning that session and the proposal for sale within ten days. 19.     On 6 December 2011 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to provide information on the state of the proceedings. 20.     Since the judicial liquidator had not replied to the previous request, on 6 March 2012 the court ordered him to urgently provide information on the state of the proceedings, giving him a ten-day time-limit. 21.     In the absence of any reply to the two previous requests, on 17   April 2012 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to provide information on the state of the proceedings, and also ordered that he would be fined if he did not provide such a reply. 22.     On 23 April 2012 the judicial liquidator informed the court that no offers to purchase had been received, and he proposed to initiate contact with companies which specialised in the real-estate sector. 23 .     On 2 May 2012 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to establish contact with real-estate companies, and gave him a ten-day time-limit. 24.     On 29 May 2012 the judicial liquidator informed the court that he had contacted some real-estate companies, but he requested ten more days in order to finalise the task. On 4 June 2012 he was informed that his request had been granted. 25 .     On 12 June 2012 the judge ordered the judicial liquidator to draw up a report indicating the detailed amounts to be allocated to each creditor in the light of the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment (see paragraph 13 above). 26 .     Following the Aveiro Commercial Court insisting that the judicial liquidator provide information on the progress regarding contact with real-estate companies by way of three notifications (sent to him on 27   September, 19 October and 19 November 2012), on 16 January 2013 he informed the court that only one real-estate company had expressed interest in mediating the sale of the property. 27 .     On 6 March 2013 the court invited the judicial liquidator to initiate new contact with real-estate companies by email, since until then contact with the real-estate companies had been established in person. 28 .     On 18 December 2013 the judicial liquidator informed the court that contact by email had been made with 119 real-estate companies, and offers to acquire the property were to be received until 15 January 2014. In the meantime, the court had sent him three notifications in that regard – on 21   May, 10 July and 11   November 2013. 29 .     On 17 June 2014 the judicial liquidator replied to the 12 June 2012 court order (see paragraph 25 above). He informed the court that most former employees had not detailed the origin of their claims, and therefore it was not possible for him to provide a detailed plan on payment. On the same date the judicial liquidator informed the court that only three real-estate companies had replied and that those replies were negative. He then suggested that a new procedure for a sale by private agreement should be initiated, this time for 50%   of the previously requested amount. 30.     In reply to the judicial liquidator’s information, on 11 July 2014 the judge ordered him to provide information on the amount already obtained as proceeds of the liquidation ( produto da liquidação ), by reference to real estate or movable property, in order to assess the practical effects of distributing those amounts among the creditors. As the judicial liquidator did not reply to that request, on 1 July 2015, 21 April 2016 and 13   June 2016 the court insisted that he do so. 31 .     Meanwhile, on 30 September and 9 October 2015 the judicial liquidator was summoned in two sets of tax enforcement proceedings against company F. 32.     On 23 November 2016 the judicial liquidator informed the court of the two sets of tax enforcement proceedings which were ongoing. 33.     On 6 July 2017 the court notified the judicial liquidator that he should provide information on the state of the proceedings within ten days. 34 .     On 1 September 2017 the court insisted that the judicial liquidator provide information on the state of the proceedings. 35 .     On 20 September 2017 the judicial liquidator informed the court that a new tax issue was an obstacle in the insolvency proceedings. 36 .     According to the latest information received by the Court on 21   May 2018, the insolvency proceedings were, on that date, still ongoing. B.     Application no. 34422/97 37.     On 11 September 1996 the applicants and other individuals (represented in the present case by their heirs) identified by numbers 1 to 131 in the Annex lodged an application with the Court to complain about the duration of the proceedings at issue before the Aveiro Court. 38 .     In a judgment of 8 June 2000, the Court found a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings, awarding each applicant the sum of 900,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE – about EUR 4,489) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and PTE 313,840 (about EUR 1,565) to the first applicant for costs and expenses. 39.     The just satisfaction was paid to the applicants on 11 and 12   December 2000. 40.     By Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)149 adopted on 8 June 2016 at the 1259 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers declared that it had exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention in respect of application no. 34422/97, and decided to close the examination of its enforcement.   II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 41 .     The relevant part of the Portuguese Code on special procedures for the recovery of companies and insolvency ( Código dos Processos Especiais de Recuperação da Empresa e de Falência – CPEREF), in the version in force at the material time (Legislative Decree no. 132/93, of 23   April 1993), provided as follows: Article 128 Decision to declare insolvency “1. In the decision declaring insolvency, the court shall: ... (e) Define a time-limit going from 20 to 60 days for the creditors’ declaration of claims. ...” THE LAW I.     PRELIMINARY ISSUES The locus standi of the heirs of the deceased applicants 42.     By letters of 3 October 2017 and 21 May 2018 the first applicant informed the Court about the death of the following applicants: Mr Rafael Policarpo Neves da Silva, Ms Maria Odete Vieira de Sousa, Ms Isaura Pereira Cortês, Mr António da Costa Santos, Mr Manuel da Loura Gamelas, Mr Arlindo de Sousa Rodrigues da Silva, Mr António Nobre Machado, Mr   Carlos Alberto Simões Instrumento, Ms Maria Clara Costa Mesquita, Ms Maria Vitória Branco Rodrigues da Rocha, Ms Maria Carolina Sousa Almeida Neto, Mr João Marques Rodrigues, Ms Lídia Lopes, Ms Fernanda Pais da Cruz Silva, Ms Ana Clara dos Santos Silva Ferreira, Ms Maria da Soledade Freire Pinto Nogueira, and Mr Jorge Alberto Pinto Nogueira. 43.     The Court takes note of the wish of those applicants’ relatives (identified in the Annex) to pursue the proceedings in their stead. To that end, the first applicant submitted notary inheritance certificates ( habilitações de herdeiros notariais ) in respect of all the late applicants except Mr João Marques Rodrigues, certifying that the relatives are their heirs. The first applicant also submitted copies of requests made by the relatives of all the late applicants asking the Aveiro Court to continue the proceedings on their behalf. 44.     Regarding the late applicant Mr João Marques Rodrigues, the first applicant also submitted documents (namely the late applicant’s death certificate and his wife’s birth certificate) to show that he had been married to Ms Maria Teresa dos Anjos Aires Rodrigues at the date of his death. 45.     The Court reiterates that where applicants die during the examination of a case, their heirs or next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application on their behalf (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII; see also Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, §   41, ECHR 2000-IX, where the applicant’s widow had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application). Furthermore, in some cases concerning the length of proceedings, the Court has recognised the right of the applicant’s heirs or close family members to pursue the application (see, for example, Horváthová v.   Slovakia , no. 74456/01, §§ 26-27, 17 May 2005). 46.     The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights which the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see, mutatis mutandis , Malhous , decision cited above). 47.     The Court also notes that the Government have not disputed that the applicants’ relatives are entitled to pursue the application on their behalf and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. 48.     In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ relatives identified in the Annex have standing to pursue the proceedings in the deceased applicants’ stead. 49.     However, for practical reasons, the Court will continue to refer to the initial applicants as “the applicants” (see, mutatis mutandis , Dalban v.   Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI). II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 50 .     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings since 8   June 2000 had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” A.     Admissibility 1.     The Government’s submissions 51.     The Government argued that the application was inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. According to the Government, by requesting that the proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the site division and urban development plan, the applicants were themselves responsible for a delay in the proceedings. 52.     The Government also argued that the applicant Ms. Rosa Rodrigues Casal was not a party to the proceedings and was therefore not a victim of the alleged violation, as she had not declared her claims at the stage of the proceedings when she was supposed to. In fact, when she had lodged her requests to have her claims recognised, her claims had not been admissible. 53.     The applicants did not reply to these objections. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     The Government’s objection as to abuse of the right of petition 54.     In relation to the Government’s argument that the applicants abused the rights set out in the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 §   3 (a), the Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of process in extraordinary circumstances, notably when there is persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant (see Felbab v. Serbia , no.   14011/07, § 56, 14 April 2009), when the application was knowingly based on untrue facts, or when incomplete and thus misleading information concerning the very core of the case was submitted to the Court (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, §   28, ECHR 2014). 55.     Having regard to its case-law, the Court considers that the applicants’ requests regarding the site division and urban development plan (see paragraph 8 above) during the domestic proceedings are not of such a nature as would justify the application being declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. 56.     It follows that the Government’s objection as to the alleged abuse of the right of petition must be rejected. (b)     The Government’s objection regarding the applicant Ms Rosa Rodrigues Casal 57.     The Court notes that, while the creditors had been summoned for the purpose of declaring their claims (see paragraph 7 above) the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal only declared her claims on 19 February 2001 (see paragraph 12 above), long after the time-limit fixed by the domestic law had expired (see paragraph 41 above). As her claims were inadmissible because they had been lodged out of time, she could no longer become a party to the insolvency proceedings. 58.     It follows that this particular applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, and the application should be rejected in so far as it concerns her, pursuant to Article 35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. (c)     Conclusion 59.     Having regard to the above, the Court notes that the application in respect of all applicants except the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The period to be taken into consideration 60.     The Court notes that the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings as of 8 June 2000, the date on which the Court’s judgment regarding application no. 34422/97 was delivered (see paragraph 38 above). At that time, the case was pending before the Coimbra Court of Appeal and the claims were awaiting classification. The latest information made available to the Court (dated 21 May 2018 – see paragraph 36 above), indicated that the insolvency proceedings were still ongoing. 61 .     The period to be taken into consideration within the framework of the examination of the present application thus extends over approximately seventeen years and eleven months. 2.     The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings 62.     The Government argued that the length of the proceedings was mostly due to the fact that the Aveiro Court had accepted to act in the applicants’ interest at their request. They also argued that the insolvency proceedings had been delayed by the tax enforcement proceedings, as they were an obstacle to the sale procedure (see paragraphs 31 and 35 above). 63.     At the outset, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV). 64.     In the present case, the Court notes that the stage of the proceedings concerning the classification of the former employees’ claims was conducted in a speedy and efficient way. Indeed, on 23 January 2001 the Coimbra Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on that issue (see paragraph   11 above), and on 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the first applicant’s appeal (see paragraph 13 above). As far as this stage of the proceedings is concerned, the Court is unable to detect any significant delays imputable to the authorities. 65.     Turning to the proceedings to liquidate the assets of company F., the Court observes that on 12 December 1997 former employees of company   F., including some of the applicants, requested that the Aveiro Court wait for the approval of a site division and urban development plan that had been drawn up by the municipality of Aveiro before ordering the sale of company F.’s assets, hoping that the plan would lead to a rise in the value of the land and thus increase their prospects of recovering their debts (see paragraph 8 above). That request led the Aveiro Court to authorise the suspension of the sale of company F.’s assets on 7 November 2000 (see   paragraph 10 above). The proceedings could not be resumed until 29   July 2009, when the body of creditors, including the applicants, concluded an agreement with the Aveiro municipality and companies F. and G. (see paragraph 16 above). 66.     The Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, §   66, 15   October 1999, and Proszak v. Poland , 16 December 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII). 67.     In the instant case, the period between 8 June 2000 and 29 July 2009 consisted of a protraction of the case requested by the applicants and accepted by the court for their own benefit. That protraction cannot be imputed to the respondent Government. It remains to be ascertained whether there has been a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement in respect of the subsequent eight years, nine months and twenty-two days that elapsed between 30 July 2009 and 21 May 2018. 68.     The Court accepts that this stage of the proceedings was of some complexity, owing to the number of parties involved. However, the Court considers that this element alone cannot explain the length of the proceedings. 69.     In respect of the applicants’ conduct, the Court considers that they cannot be deemed responsible for any delays encountered since 30   July 2009. 70.     Turning to the conduct of the national authorities, the Court notes that there were some periods of inactivity on the part of the judicial liquidator for which the Government have provided no explanation, notably: -     it took almost four months (from 27 September 2012 until 16 January 2013) for the judicial liquidator to reply to the court order on establishing contact with real-estate companies (see paragraph 26 above); -     it took him more than nine months (from 6 March 2013 until 18   December 2013) to reply to the court order on establishing new contact with real-estate companies by email (see paragraphs 27 and 28 above); -     it took him two years (from 12 June 2012 until 17 June 2014) to reply to the court order on the report indicating the detailed amounts to be allocated to each creditor in the light of the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment (see paragraphs 25 and 29 above); -     it took him more than one year (from 30 September 2015 until 23   November 2016) to inform the Aveiro Commercial Court that he had been summoned in two sets of tax enforcement proceedings against company F. (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above). 71.     Even assuming that the liquidator enjoyed a considerable amount of operational and institutional independence and did not act as a State agent, thus not rendering the respondent State directly responsible for his acts (see, mutatis mutandis , Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, §§ 91-107, 3   April 2012), it cannot be overlooked that the domestic courts were responsible for ensuring that he complied with the relevant rules (ibid., § 107). Indeed, the liquidator was working in the context of judicial proceedings, supervised by a court which remained responsible for the preparation and speedy conduct of the trial (see, mutatis mutandis , and with respect to court-appointed experts, Billi v.   Italy , 26 February 1993, § 19, Series A no. 257-G, and Scopelliti v. Italy , 23 November 1993, § 23, Series A no. 278; see also Terebus v. Portugal , no. 5238/10 , § 49, 10 April 2014). 72.     The Court understands from the facts as submitted by the parties that another main reason for the delay in the proceedings was the existence of two sets of tax enforcement proceedings which also concerned company F.’s assets. The Court notes, however, that the Government have not explained exactly how those proceedings constituted an obstacle to the insolvency proceedings, nor have they shown that the tax enforcement proceedings, which were allegedly decisive as regards the protractedness of the insolvency proceedings, were conducted diligently by the courts (see, mutatis mutandis , Jama v. Slovenia , no. 48163/08, § 36, 19 July 2012). In   any event, the Aveiro Commercial Court was informed of the tax proceedings only on 23   November 2016 (see paragraph 32 above). 73.     The Court reiterates that it is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Tusa v. Italy , 27 February 1992, §   17, Series A no.   231 ‑ D, and Jama v. Slovenia , cited above, § 36), and the Court finds that no convincing arguments have been adduced by the Government to show that the length of the proceedings complained of was reasonable as required by that provision. 74.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State authorities bear primary responsibility for the excessive length of the proceedings in question from 30 July 2009 until 21 May 2018. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 75.     There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 76.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 77.     In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed the same amounts they had claimed in the domestic proceedings and which they have not yet received. In addition, the applicants claimed an amount going from 4,500   euros   (EUR) to EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 78.     The Government contested these claims. 79.     The Court notes that the amounts claimed in respect of pecuniary damage can only be paid in the context of the domestic proceedings; it   therefore rejects this claim. 80.     As far as non-pecuniary damage is concerned, the Court notes that all the applicants, former employees of company F., were parties to the same domestic proceedings which concerned the liquidation of the assets of the company in question. In connection with this, the Court reiterates that where common proceedings have been found to be excessively long, it must take account of the manner in which the number of participants in such proceedings may influence the level of distress, inconvenience and uncertainty affecting each of them. Thus, a high number of participants will very probably have an impact on the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Such an approach is based on the fact that the number of individuals participating in common proceedings before the domestic courts is not neutral from the perspective of the non-pecuniary damage that may be sustained by each of them as a result of the length of those proceedings when compared with the non-pecuniary damage that would be sustained by an individual who had brought identical proceedings on an individual basis. Membership of a group of people who have resolved to apply to a court on the same factual or legal basis means that both the advantages and disadvantages of common proceedings will be shared (see Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC], no.   27278/03, §   29, 15 February 2008). 81.     It should also be reiterated that the Court enjoys a certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 41, as is borne out by the adjective “just” and the phrase “if necessary” (see Guzzardi v.   Italy , 6   November 1980, § 114, Series A no. 39). That being the case, and unless it concludes that the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained, the Court must ensure that the amount awarded is reasonable in terms of the seriousness of the violation that is found. In particular, in its assessment, it must take account of the amounts already awarded in similar cases, and, in the event of common proceedings, account of the number of applicants and the total sum awarded to them (see Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , cited above, § 32). Given the Court’s principal task, namely securing respect for human rights, rather than compensating applicants’ losses minutely and exhaustively, in cases involving a significant number of victims placed in a similar situation, a uniform approach is to be adopted (see Gaglione and Others v.   Italy , nos.   45867/07 and 474 others, §§ 67-68, 21 December 2010). 82.     The Court notes that in the ambit of the domestic proceedings, the applicants were all pursuing the same objective, namely obtaining a rise in the value of the land of company F. and thus increasing the prospects of their recovering what they were owed (see paragraph 8 above). The shared objective of the impugned proceedings was such as to alleviate the inconvenience and uncertainty experienced on account of their delay (see, mutatis mutandis , Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , cited above, § 34, and, a   contrario , Belev and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 16354/02 and 40 others, §   112, 2 April 2009, where the applicants were not parties in common proceedings, but had lodged distinct and separate judicial claims). 83.     At the same time, the present case should be distinguished from those in which, instead of acting on their own behalf in judicial proceedings, affected individuals establish a legal entity to do so, a fact which can justify not taking into account the interests of individual members of the association when determining the amount of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, a contrario , Društvo Za Varstvo Upnikov v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 66433/13, §§   54-64, 21 November 2017, where an association, and not individual creditors, brought an action against a company which had failed to meet its contractual obligations). Moreover, what was at stake for the applicants in the impugned proceedings, namely the recovery of what they were owed in respect of their work, was such as to exacerbate the prejudice sustained by them on account of the protracted nature of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , cited above, § 35). 84.     Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the extension of the impugned proceedings beyond a “reasonable time” undoubtedly caused the applicants non-pecuniary damage which would justify an award. It also takes into consideration the number of applicants, the nature of the violation found, and the need to determine the amount in such a way that the overall sum is compatible with the relevant case-law and is reasonable in the light of what was at stake in the proceedings in question (see, mutatis mutandis , Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , cited above, § 36). On the basis of the above considerations, and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 500 to each of the applicants under this head (see, mutatis mutandis , Gaglione and Others , cited above, §§ 69-70), as detailed in the appended table (account being taken of the fact that when several heirs are continuing an application on behalf of a deceased applicant, the amount shall be paid jointly). B.     Costs and expenses 85.     The first applicant, Ms Maria de Lurdes Ferreira de Matos Oliveira Modesto, also claimed EUR 2,011.14 for costs and expenses incurred in presenting the applicants’ case before the Court. 86.     The Government contested the claim. 87.     According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. 88.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full. C.     Default interest 89.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Holds that the applicants’ heirs identified in the appended table have standing to continue the present proceedings in the stead of the deceased applicants;   2.     Declares the application inadmissible in so far as it has been lodged by Ms Rosa Rodrigues Casal;   3.     Declares the remainder of the application admissible;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts: (i)     EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to each of the applicants, or EUR   500 (five hundred euros) jointly to the heirs of the late applicants who continued the proceedings before the Court in their stead, as detailed in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage: (ii)     EUR 2,011.14 (two thousand eleven euros and fourteen cents) to the first applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   6.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Andrea Tamietti   Egidijus Kūris Deputy Registrar   President     ANNEX     No. Applicant reference number Applicant name Date of birth and Residence Notes Non-pecuniary damage award 1 1 Maria de Lurdes Ferreira de Matos Oliveira Modesto 26/01/1952 AVEIRO   EUR 500 2 2 Maria Clara Morgado Guerra Soares 27/10/1959 AVEIRO   EUR 500 3 3 Fernanda Geraldo Fernandes de Carvalho 03/01/1951 CARREGAL   EUR 500 4 4 Manuel Oliveira da Costa 16/04/1948 CACIA   EUR 500 5 5 Olinda da Graça Carvalho 28/01/1958 AVEIRO   EUR 500 6 6 Emanuel Lopes Lobo 04/10/1938 AVEIRO   EUR 500 7 7 Rafael Policarpo Neves da Silva 17/04/1941 EIXO Ms Gisela Matzen Neves da Silva, Ms Daniela Matzen Neves da Silva Nogueira, Ms Ana Catarina Neves da Silva, and Ms Joana Rafael Neves da Silva, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. EUR 500 (jointly) 8 8 Maria Leonor Rodrigues da Silva 07/09/1953 AVEIRO   EUR 500 9 9 Joaquim António Teles Machado 10/04/1949 AVEIRO   EUR 500 10 10 Ana Maria Rodrigues da Cruz 30/07/1958 AVEIRO   EUR 500 11 11 Maria Ascenção Gonçalves Maio 03/10/1940 AVEIRO   EUR 500 12 12 José Ferreira da Rocha 28/07/1932 AVEIRO   EUR 500 13 13 Maria José da Costa Ferreira 18/01/1955 AVEIRO   EUR 500 14 14 Benilde Catarina Peralta 05/05/1938 AVEIRO   EUR 500 15 15 Maria Isabel Nunes da Silva Valente 28/06/1954 AVEIRO   EUR 500 16 16 Maria Odete Vieira de Sousa 20/08/1950 S. BERNARDO Mr António Fernando de Lemos, Mr Nuno Filipe Vieira de Sousa Lemos, and Mr Renato Emanuel Vieira de Sousa Lemos, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in her stead. EUR 500 (jointly) 17 17 José Fernando dos Santos Martins 27/04/1947 AVEIRO   EUR 500 18 18 Zícia do Céu Benedita Peralta 10/04/1955 COSTA DO VALADO   EUR 500 19 19 Celeste Glória Benedita Peralta Dias 14/10/1957 ESTARREJA   EUR 500 20 20 Maria Fernanda dos Santos Saraiva 31/08/1959 AVEIRO   EUR 500 21 21 Maria dos Anjos Pereira Ribães Rodrigues 10/03/1955 CACIA   EUR 500 22 22 Isaura Pereira Cortez 28/08/1948 AVEIRO Mr António Dias Ribeiro and Nelson Renato Cortez Ribeiro, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in her stead. EUR 500 (jointly) 23 23 Maria Pereira Cortês 23/03/1947 AVEIRO   EUR 500 24 24 Olinda Rosa Pereira Cortês 14/08/1950 AVEIRO   EUR 500 25 26 Maria Luisa dos Santos Oliveira 19/04/1941 SANTA JOANA   EUR 500 26 27 Florinda dos Santos Oliveira Campos 02/05/1950 AVEIRO   EUR 500 27 28 Maria Isabel Vizinho Freitas Brites 08/11/1952 ILHAVO   EUR 500 28 29 António José Brites 15/06/1950 ILHAVO   EUR 500 29 30 António Pedro Nunes de Carvalho 25/03/1945 ANGEJA   EUR 500 30 31 Palmira Nascimento Fernandes Almeida 07/02/1958 CACIA   EUR 500 31 32 Maria Helena Rodrigues dos Santos Garrido 29/05/1959 AVEIRO   EUR 500 32 33 Maria Helena Morais Vaia Duarte 12/09/1959 AVEIRO   EUR 500 33 34 Maria Preciosa Marques de Araújo Santos 16/08/1954 CACIA   EUR 500 34 35 Virgílio Ferreira Souto Ratola 12/03/1957 MAMODEIRO   EUR 500 35 36 Maria Fernanda Santos de Carvalho Ratola 05/03/1950 MAMODEIRO   EUR 500 36 37 José Mário Gonçalves Carvalho 09/02/1944 AVEIRO   EUR 500 37 38 Luis Manuel dos Reis Vinagre 25/12/1948 AVEIRO   EUR 500 38 39 António Rufino Marques Ferreira 03/04/1949 AVEIRO   EUR 500 39 40 Maria Alegria Branco Neves Ferreira 10/08/1949 AVEIRO   EUR 500 40 41 Rosa Dias Nunes 27/01/1948 LUXEMBOURG   EUR 500 41 42 Noémia Ferreira Dias Marques 28/02/1956 CACIA   EUR 500 42 43 Maria Augusta Ferreira Monteiro 21/07/1954 AVEIRO   EUR 500 43 44 Fernanda Augusta Pereira Monteiro Silva 30/11/1957 CACIA   EUR 500 44 45 Maria de Fátima Marinho Teixeira Dinis 13/05/1952 AVEIRO   EUR 500 45 46 Maria da Graça de Almeida Roque 12/02/1953 AVEIRO   EUR 500 46 47 Maria Luísa Leal Bessa Frazão 01/07/1958 AVEIRO   EUR 500 47 48 Maria Luísa Ferreira Vieira Morgado 12/10/1957 CACIA   EUR 500 48 49 Aldina Maria Fonseca de Pinho 09/04/1955 GAFANHA DA NAZARÉ   EUR 500 49 50 Manuel Soares Ferreira 01/12/1943 AVEIRO   EUR 500 50 51 António da Costa Santos 23/08/1946 AVEIRO Ms Maria da Conceição da Silva Dias Santos and Mr Emanuel da Silva Santos, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. EUR 500 (jointly) 51 52 Américo Pereira Galvão Seco 02/04/1946 EIXO   EUR 500 52 53 Maria Isabel Pereira Oliveira Santos 25/01/1951 AVEIRO   EUR 500 53 54 Guilhermina Conceição Almeida Oliveira 16/01/1960 AVEIRO   EUR 500 54 55 Luísa da Silva Pereira 22/06/1954 CACIA   EUR 500 55 56 José Maia Gonçalves 07/09/1941 AVEIRO   EUR 500 56 57 Ermosa Maria Dunas Figueira Russo 18/06/1960 AVEIRO   EUR 500 57 58 Armando Henrique da Silva Vinagre 21/08/1946 AVEIRO   EUR 500 58 59 Maria José Pereira Coutinho 01/04/1953 AVEIRO   EUR 500 59 60 Manuel Soares Reis Santos 11/10/1940 ÓIS DA RIBEIRA   EUR 500 60 61 Ana Paula Santos Rodrigues Bartolomeu 04/01/1959 AVEIRO   EUR 500 61 63 Rosa Maria Almeida Gonçalves Brandão 31/08/1956 AVEIRO   EUR 500 62 64 Manuel da Loura Gamelas 13/01/1941 AVEIRO Mr José Manuel Teixeira Gamelas, heir of the applicant, pursues the application in his stead. EUR 500 63 65 Maria de Lurdes Maia Dias 18/03/1952 AVEIRO   EUR 500 64 66 Maria de Lurdes Sousa Lopes Garcia 09/02/1936 AVEIRO   EUR 500 65 67 Maria Henriqueta Calado Nunes Oliveira 11/06/1955 AVEIRO   EUR 500 66 68 Rosa Maria Duarte Ramalho 20/11/1955 OLIVEIRINHA   EUR 500 67 69 Maria Margarida Pereira Leiroz Guimarães 12/05/1943 ILHAVO   EUR 500 68 70 Ana Luisa Fernanda Almeida Rosa 10/06/1956 EIXO   EUR 500 69 71 Maria de Fátima de Oliveira Dinis Silva 17/10/1957 OVAR   EUR 500 70 73 Maria Helena Nunes Videira da Cruz 04/09/1954 LOURE   EUR 500 71 74 Maria Aldina Ferreira Monteiro Moreira 07/09/1952 ÁGUEDA   EUR 500 72 76 Maria Rosália Gonçalves Genrinho 25/08/1940 AVEIRO   EUR 500 73 78 Belarmino de Ornelas Resende 03/04/1930 AVEIRO   EUR 500 74 79 António Rodrigues Ferreira 02/01/1935 OIà   EUR 500 75 80 Maria Ascenção Barros Naia Fortes 01/02/1955 AVEIRO   EUR 500 76 81 Francelina Marques Silva Alvarez 30/01/1954 AVEIRO   EUR 500 77 82 Carlos Manuel Padre Fitorra 27/03/1952 AVEIRO   EUR 500 78 83 Maria Augusta Pereira Pinto Fitorra 11/05/1958 AVEIRO   EUR 500 79 84 Júlia Maria Ferreira da Cunha Matos 16/10/1958 S. BERNARDO   EUR 500 80 85 Maria Carolina Pereira Coutinho Camarão 22/03/1955 AVEIRO   EUR 500 81 86 Maria Helena Amaro Bonifácio 08/08/1957 ANGEJA   EUR 500 82 87 Maria José Silva Nunes Ferreira 16/10/1958 AVEIRO   EUR 500 83 88 Ilda Maria Calisto de Lima 25/09/1958 ILHAVO   EUR 500 84 89 Ana Maria Calisto de Lima 28/10/1957 AVEIRO   EUR 500 85 90 Rosa Maria Branco das Neves Ribeiro 18/11/1951 AVEIRO   EUR 500 86 91 Adélia Pereira Brandão 20/05/1950 AVEIRO   EUR 500 87 92 Maria Isabel Simões Sequeira 04/03/1953 AVEIRO   EUR 500 88 93 Arlindo de Sousa Rodrigues da Silva 22/03/1938 ALBERGARIA-A-VELHA Ms Rosa Maria Rodrigues da Silva, Ms Anabela Rodrigues da Silva, and Ms Ana Alexandra Rodrigues da Silva Sachse, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. EUR 500 (jointly) 89 95 António Nobre Machado 04/02/1924 AVEIRO Ms Noémia Maria Diniz Teles Machado, Mr Joaquim António Dinis Teles Machado, Mr Raul Diniz Teles Machado, Mr José Carlos Diniz Teles Machado, and Ms Ana Paula Diniz Teles Machado Pimenta, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. EUR 500 (jointly) 90 96 Manuel Silva Costa Malafaia 26/08/1957 AVEIRO   EUR 500 91 97 Ana Maria Almeida Dias Santos 11/01/1953 AVEIRO   EUR 500 92 98 Rodrigo da Silva Ferreira 05/06/1944 AVEIRO   EUR 500 93 99 Maria Fernanda da Costa 13/04/1951 AVEIRO   EUR 500 94 100 Alfredo Ferraz Leal 28/12/1935 AVEIRO   EUR 500 95 101 Carlos Alberto Simões Instrumento 13/05/1925 AVEIRO Mr João Francisco Rasoilo Simões, Mr Carlos Alberto Simões, and Mr Óscar Manuel Simões, heirs of the applica