CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 février 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1991 Vernillo v. France - 11889/85 Judgment 20.2.1991 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Possibility of bringing action for compensation against State under Article L 781-1 of Code of Judicial Organisation – State's liability very narrowly circumscribed under that provision – applicants had not claimed to be victims of a "denial of justice" or of "gross negligence" – French courts had not interpreted concept of gross negligence sufficiently broadly to include every delay exceeding the "reasonable time" laid down in Article 6 §   1 of the Convention – plea unfounded. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION (reasonable time) A.   Period to be considered Starting-point: date on which applicants were summoned before Nice tribunal de grande instance . Close: delivery of Court of Cassation's judgment. Result: about seven and a half years. B.   Relevant criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings – to be assessed in light of particular circumstances of case and having regard to the criteria laid down in Court's case-law. Complexity of case: slight. Conduct of the parties: had done much to prolong proceedings. Conduct of judicial authorities: at least two periods might seem abnormal, but had not been so long as to warrant conclusion that total duration of proceedings had been excessive. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes