CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 novembre 2002

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 47 November 2002 Boca v. Belgium - 50615/99 Judgment 15.11.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Urgent interim proceedings: violation Facts : The present case concerned two sets of civil proceedings. The first concerned the divorce action brought before the court of first instance in March 1998 and the second, which was brought at the same time, concerned the provisional measures in respect of which the relevant law conferred on the urgent applications court special jurisdiction in that regard during the divorce proceedings. These provisional measures concerned the couple's infant children. The proceedings before the urgent applications court were closed in June 2000 by a judgment recording the parties' withdrawal from the proceedings; the parties had stated that they would comply with the provisional measures made by order at first instance, concerning the resumption of contact by the children with their mother and the payment of maintenance by the father. The substantive proceedings were completed in March 2000 with a judgment of the Court of Appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The substantive divorce proceedings must be distinguished from the proceedings before the urgent applications court. The former proceedings lasted two years for two levels of jurisdiction. That period corresponds in the present case to the reasonable time requirement. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The second set of proceedings covered a period of more than two years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction. The stakes in the urgent applications proceedings were important, since the question to be resolved was that of the custody of two infant children. Urgent applications proceedings are in essence proceedings which cannot suffer any delay, even at the appeal stage and notwithstanding the enforceable nature of the interim order made at first instance. On appeal, owing to the large number of cases on the list, the case was placed on a waiting list and the hearing was fixed one year and two months after the case was ready to proceed. The overall length of the proceedings cannot be considered reasonable in the present case. Conclusion : 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