CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 septembre 2004

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 67 August-September 2004 Markin v. Russia (dec.) - 59502/00 Decision 16.9.2004 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Calculation of length of proceedings subject to supervisory review on several occasions The applicant was charged with having cleared an imported car through customs using forged documents; as a result, the car was confiscated. In May 1997, the applicant brought a court action against this measure which was dismissed by the District Court. Following supervisory review proceedings, a judgment favourable to the applicant was delivered in March 1999. However, in July 1999 this judgment was quashed. The case ended with a decision upholding the quashing in June 2000. However, in a new round of supervisory review proceedings instituted in 2002 the judgment which had granted the applicant’s complaint was re-instated. It nevertheless appears that the applicant’s car has not been returned to him. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time): The periods to be considered were only those when the case was actually pending before the courts, and not the whole span between the beginning and the end of the proceedings, as this did not reflect the true length of the determination of the applicant’s civil rights by the domestic courts. Thus, the period to be considered was 1 year, 1 month and 6 days, during which the merits of the case had been examined three times and there had been no substantial periods of inactivity: manifestly ill-founded. Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   © 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