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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 27 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56681/19 Denis O’LEARY against Ireland lodged on 28 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant commenced medical negligence proceedings on 24 April 2008. His claim was dismissed in a judgment of the High Court delivered on 20 May 2010 on the basis he had failed to establish any negligence on the part of the defendants. Final orders were made on 8 June 2010. He appealed to the Supreme Court on 22 June 2010. The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal in 2014, a hearing took place on 6 October 2017 and the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 12 March 2018. The applicant was granted leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court on grounds relating to the fees paid to two medical consultants retained by the defendants in the proceedings. That appeal was heard on 7 February 2019 and dismissed in a judgment delivered on 31 May 2019. The applicant complains that the period of 7 years and nine months between the High Court decision and the Court of Appeal decision is incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that under Article 13 he has no effective domestic remedy for this violation.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?