CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 octobre 2001

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 35 October 2001 Slots v. Denmark (dec.) - 39646/98 Decision 4.10.2001 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Final decision in bankruptcy proceedings and notification to the bankrupt The applicant complained about the length of bankruptcy proceedings instituted against him in May 1982. Two official receivers were appointed to examine the applicant’s estate in bankruptcy and to settle the accounts. By a decision of June 1985, the competent court approved the accounts produced by the receivers, including the fees to be paid to them, and the principle of distribution to the creditors. A few questions were temporarily left open regarding accounts which the receivers had not been able to recover. The applicant appealed only against the part of the decision concerning the receivers’ fees. In November 1988, the Supreme Court upheld the first instance decision as regards the receivers’ fees. On 21 May 1992, the court dealing with the bankruptcy approved the additional accounts presented by the receivers as well as an additional statement of distribution. On 27 May 1992, the Danish Official Gazette stated that the bankruptcy proceedings had been closed with the last court decision of 21 May 1992. In June 1992, the applicant appealed against this decision, contesting the principle of distribution adopted. On 14 September 1995, the High Court dismissed his appeal, holding that the principle of distribution had become final with the court decision of June 1985 and that he was precluded from appealing against it at that stage. In September 1996 and November 1997, the applicant requested the official receivers to inform him when the closure of the estate bankruptcy was to take place but received no answer. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: After 14 September 1995, no dispute remained to be settled, no further accounts to be approved, no more distribution to creditors to take place, and no further deferred questions or parts of the estate. The applicant contended that the proceedings continued after this date with the enforcement proceedings. He relied on the fact that he had not received after 14 September 1995 any notification from the official receivers to informing him that the bankruptcy proceedings were closed and that no final list of distribution had been sent to him. As to the list of distribution, no provision of domestic law requires that the official receivers should send one to the person declared bankrupt after its approval by the relevant court, and the applicant should have been familiar with such a list. The court decision of 21 May 1992, by which the bankruptcy proceedings were closed, was notified in the Official Gazette, in accordance with domestic law, and the applicant was informed of the decision of the High Court of 14 September 1995 dismissing his appeal. Moreover, no disposition in domestic law provides for a special notification from the official receivers informing him of the closure of the bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, it was considered that the proceedings in issue ended on 14 September 1995, and consequently that the applicant’s application of 6 September 1996 was lodged out of time.   © 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