CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 octobre 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 14 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 43390/22 and 43775/22 Luigi BARULLI against San Marino and Adriana SALVATORI against San Marino both lodged on 2 September 2022 communicated on 24 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the length of civil proceedings. The applicant in application no. 43390/22 owns 2 % of the companies HD and BW, owned for the remaining 98% by his wife, the applicant in application no. 43775/22, who was the sole administrator of the companies. The companies went bankrupt, and an insolvency procedure ensued, including a competition of creditors which started in 2006. By a decision of 28 June 2013, having determined on the evidence available that the couple made no distinction between their belongings and those of the companies, to the detriment of the creditors of the companies, the court decided that the applicants were to be considered jointly liable with the companies, for the purposes of the competition of creditors. A challenge against this decision ( opposizione ) lodged by the applicants on 11 September 2013 was adjourned for judgment on 28 September 2017. It was then rejected on 29   August 2019 and an appeal was rejected on 30 March 2022, notified on 4 May 2022. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain about the length of the proceedings to decide their challenge, and the relevant appeal, against the decision to hold them jointly liable.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the length of the proceedings in the present case, which determined the applicants’ challenge ( opposizione ) against the decision to hold them jointly liable, particularly, at first instance, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (compare Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Tierce v. San Marino , no.   69700/01, § 30, ECHR 2003 ‑ VII)?