CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Communicated on 27 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30123/18 Michael Joseph BARRY and Breda BARRY against Ireland lodged on 11 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are the owners of a motor racing track, Speedway Limited, trading as Tipperary Raceway (‘the Company’). The applicants and the Company were the defendants in civil proceedings taken by the owners of a neighbouring stud farm claiming nuisance and breaches of the planning acts. The proceedings commenced in the Circuit Court on 21   September 2006 and were transferred to the High Court on 22 May 2007 where a hearing took place over six days in October 2007 and January 2008. A written judgment delivered on 15 February 2008 found in favour of the plaintiffs and granted them injunctive relief. The applicants lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court on 18 June 2008. The applicants’ revised notice of appeal and legal submissions were submitted on 10 June 2015. The appeal was listed for hearing on 14 December 2015 but was adjourned for hearing on 14 June 2016 at the request of the applicants. In their appeal the applicants argued that the High Court had incorrectly applied the statutory seven-year limitation period for planning enforcement actions. The Supreme Court delivered a written judgment on 27 July 2016 reversing the High Court decision on this point and remitting the proceedings to the High Court for reconsideration of the appropriate injunctive relief. The parties then entered into mediation and a settlement agreement was made an order of court on 21 December 2017. The applicants complain that the delay of seven years and 6 months between the lodging of the Supreme Court appeal on 18 June 2008 and the first hearing date on 14 December 2015 is incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES A. To the Government   1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   B. To the applicants   2.     What steps were taken by the applicants between lodging an appeal in June 2008 and the revision of their notice of appeal and the lodging of legal submissions in June 2015? Did the applicants make any attempt during this period or hereafter to expedite the proceedings?