CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 mai 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 75 May 2005 Kaufmann v. Italy - 14021/02 Judgment 19.5.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Applicant’s appeal declared inadmissible for non-respect of a time-limit although delay was attributable to State organs: violation   Facts : In the course of civil proceedings, the applicant was required to notify the parties within a period of ninety days that he had appealed to the Court of Cassation. Some of the parties lived abroad and were notified of the appeal after the period had expired. The applicant sought an extension of the time-limit or an assurance that the appeal would not be dismissed for failure to comply with it; the steps he had had to take himself had been completed before the period had expired and only those steps which were the responsibility of the State authorities regarding notification in foreign countries had been completed out of time. The Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the binding time-limit he had been set. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The applicant had carried out all the tasks assigned to him in good time, seventeen days before the expiry of the relevant period. However, the notification had taken place after the period had expired. The delay had related to the subsequent procedure for notification abroad, in which an Italian bailiff transmitted the file to the Ministry of Justice of the country concerned, which was responsible for handing over the documents. That stage of the subsequent notification procedure was beyond the control of a private individual. Nevertheless, the Court of Cassation had refused to extend the time allowed. That particularly strict application of a procedural rule had penalised the applicant to an unreasonable extent, since he had been de facto held partly responsible for the delays caused both by the Italian bailiffs and by the foreign authorities. In those circumstances, the decision to dismiss his appeal as being out of time had amounted to an unjustified restriction on his right of access to a court. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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