CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 septembre 2023

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Legal summary September 2023 Van den Kerkhof v. Belgium - 13630/19 Judgment 5.9.2023 [Section II] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Respondent State required to address structural problem of excessive length of civil proceedings before courts of the Brussels judicial district Facts – The civil proceedings brought by the applicant before the courts of the Brussels judicial district on 15   December 2015 had lasted nearly seven years and eight months. Moreover, they were still pending before the domestic courts. Law – Article   6 §   1: The applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Seven years and eight months had elapsed, for two levels of jurisdiction, since the originating summons were issued (one year and one month for the proceedings before the French-Language Brussels Court of First Instance, and 46   months before the Brussels Court of Appeal). Moreover, the proceedings were still pending. Thus, although the Court of Appeal had remitted the case to the first-instance court in February   2021, a hearing had yet to be scheduled. Furthermore, the applicant could not be criticised for any lack of diligence. Lastly, the Court noted that in January   2019 the National Council of Justice had declared the applicant’s complaint well-founded on account of the excessively slow pace at which procedural steps were being taken in his case, finding that these delays reflected a “dysfunction of the judiciary”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   46: The Court had previously found numerous violations of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings before the courts of the Brussels judicial district. It noted that the problems at issue were structural and not confined solely to the applicant’s personal situation. In that regard, it relied on the National Council of Justice’s findings to that effect in its June 2022 audit of the Brussels Court of Appeal. It further took into consideration the concerns expressed in June   2021 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its Interim Resolution (CM/ResDH(2021)103) in the case of Bell v.   Belgium concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings before the first-instance courts, and at its September 2022 meeting on the supervision of that judgment’s execution. Under the Convention, the States Parties were responsible not only for the delays attributable to their legal systems in the handling of a particular case, but also for structural deficiencies in their judicial system that caused delays. Tackling this problem could require the State to take a range of legislative, organisational, budgetary and other measures. Compliance with the reasonable-time requirement also necessarily called for the involvement of all protagonists in the justice system. Accordingly, taking into account the national authorities’ freedom as to the means by which to implement their obligations under the Convention, it was for the respondent State to take the necessary measures to guarantee the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the Brussels judicial district, in accordance with the requirements of Article   6 §   1. Article   41: EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Bell v.   Belgium , 44826/05 , 4   November 2008)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .