CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 décembre 2003

.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 59 December 2003 Hadjikostova v. Bulgaria - 36843/97 Judgment 4.12.2003 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Significant periods of delay despite reasonableness of overall length – relevance of matter at stake Facts : The applicant brought an action for compensation in respect of a third party’s occupation of a building of which she claimed to be a co-owner. The action, lodged on 19   January 1995, was finally settled on 2 February 2000 in a judgment by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Law : Article 6 § 1 – Assuming an overall length of proceedings that was, in principle, acceptable (in the case in question, slightly longer than five years for three levels of jurisdiction), including significant periods of delay for which the national authorities could be held responsible (in the present case, two periods of delay, of one year and more than seven months and one year and more than eleven months), the Court considered that the importance of the matters at stake necessarily played a decisive role in assessing whether the length of the proceedings had been reasonable. Where the matter at stake was of particular importance, the Court required special diligence on the part of the authorities. If no particularly important matter was at stake, the authorities were not obliged to give priority to the case, whilst remaining bound by the obligation to ensure that the right to a hearing within a reasonable time was respected. In concluding that the periods of delay for which the State could be held responsible had not resulted in a “reasonable time” being exceeded, the Court took into consideration the overall length of the proceedings, the fact that the dispute was not of particular importance and was somewhat complex and the fact that it had been brought before three courts. 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