CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2021

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 }   Published on 3 May 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7025/21 Carlo FILIPPINI against San Marino lodged on 19 January 2021 communicated on 16 April 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Carlo Filippini, is an Italian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Borgo Maggiore. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Grassi, a lawyer practising in Rimini. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 16 March 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings (no. 85/2006) against named third parties for non-fulfilment of contractual obligations. By a judgment of 16 July 2009, the first instance court found in favour of the applicant, ordering the third parties to pay him around 55,000 euros (EUR) plus interest. The third parties appealed in October 2009 to the Court of Appeal. On 28 March 2010 the applicant requested a prohibitory injunction, as a precautionary measure, in view of the fact that one of the third parties had been in process of voluntary liquidation, and the judgment of the first instance court was not enforceable before a decision on appeal had been rendered. His request was rejected on 14 December 2011. On 11 October 2013 the case file was sent to the Court of Appeal to continue proceedings. The proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Is the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?