CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4630C0C6 { width:16.28%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s43FD72CA { width:18.6%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s78F85035 { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA8E92934 { width:14.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2DC5D8D1 { width:19.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8ECF8208 { width:16.28%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s19D5791C { width:18.6%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2C70A94D { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2A96350D { width:14.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AFCCCE8 { width:19.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28236/19 Vitor Manuel CARRETO RIBEIRO against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Anne Louise Bormann , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14   May 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is inadmissible. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings (see Valada Matos das Neves v. Portugal , no. 73798/13, 29 October 2015). More specifically, on the question of excessive delay in civil proceedings, the Court has consistently held that, while an unreasonable delay in enforcing a binding judgment may be contrary to the Convention, the reasonableness of such a delay is to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard in particular to the applicant’s own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, among other factors ( see Comingersoll S.A. v.   Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, ECHR 2000-IV; Raylyan v.   Russia , no.   22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007; and Bieliński v. Poland , no. 48762/19, §§   42-44, 21 July 2022). Accordingly, the applicants’ behaviour constitutes an objective fact which cannot be attributed to the respondent State, and which must be considered for the purpose of determining whether or not the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 § 1 has been exceeded ( see Poiss v.   Austria , 23 April 1987, § 57, Series A no. 117; Wiesinger v. Austria , 30   October 1991, § 57, Series A no. 213). Applying those principles to the present case, the Court finds that the applicant’s conduct contributed to a large extent to the length of the proceedings. On the one hand, as it appears from the Government’s account of the facts, which has not been challenged by the applicant, some of the delays in the proceedings can be attributed to the applicant’s lack of procedural initiative, his inertia and the lack of due diligence he displayed in the few procedural requests he made, often making mistakes and causing further delays, which is all the more surprising given that the applicant is a lawyer. By contrast, the Court does not find any significant period of inactivity, for which the authorities could be held responsible. The   authorities’ diligence was demonstrated by the numerous procedural initiatives they took throughout the proceedings. The Court also notes that its assessment of the facts is supported by the fact that the civil proceedings were ultimately discontinued on account of the applicant’s lack of procedural initiative. In view of the above, the Court finds that the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court File number   28236/19 14/05/2019   Vitor Manuel CARRETO   RIBEIRO 1956     19/12/2007     23/05/2018     10 years and 5 months and 5 days   1 level of jurisdiction     Judicial Court of Cartaxo Proc. 1245.07.8TBBJA