CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juillet 2000

.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 20 July 2000 Tsingour v. Greece - 40437/98 Judgment 6.7.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings before the Council of State – congestion of the roll due to successive strikes by lawyers: violation Facts : On 30 June 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal before the Council of State against the refusal of the Order of Pharmacists to admit him as a member. The hearing was postponed on several occasions. The authorities attributed these delays to an excessive workload caused by a series of lawyers’ strikes. The hearing took place on 19 May 1998 and on 12 January 1999 the court delivered a judgment annulling the decision of the Order. Law : Article 6 § 1 – Although it cannot be denied that a persistent lawyers’ strike is capable of disrupting the functioning of a supreme court, decisions must none the less be delivered within a reasonable time. In the present case the law allows the hearing to be postponed only once. The considerable length of the proceedings before a single level of court “is difficult to reconcile with the effectiveness and credibility of the judicial system demanded by the Convention”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000,000 drachma (GDR) in respect of loss of opportunity owing to his inability to pursue his profession as a result of the combined effects of the decision of the Order of Pharmacists and the time which the Council of State required to determine the matter. The Court also awarded the applicant a sum in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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