CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juillet 1999

.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 8 July 1999 Santos v. Portugal - 35586/97 Judgment 22.7.1999 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings in which the applicant claimed damages: violation Facts : On 9 June 1991 the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint concerning a bad cheque. In May 1993 he claimed damages against the defendant. As the defendant could not be found, the representative of the public prosecutor's office issued an order in May 1994 for the defendant to be summoned by the display of notices. The defendant received the case file in February 1997 and the judge set the case down for trial on 3 July 1997. However, the trial was adjourned sine die when the judge fell ill. On 19 March 1999 the judge set the case down for trial on 11 October 2000. Law : The period to be taken into consideration began not when the criminal complaint was lodged on 20 June 1991 but when the action in damages was brought on 7 May 1993. The adjourned proceedings were still pending. The length of the proceedings for the purposes of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention was therefore six years and approximately two months. The case was not complex and the applicant had not contributed to the delays in the proceedings. As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court found that there had been a period of inactivity when the defendant could not be found. That was an incontrovertible fact which could not be entirely attributable to the State. However, the fact that the judicial authorities had encountered difficulties in effecting service as required by statute could not deprive the applicant, who was a civil party to those proceedings, of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. The Court also found another unjustified delay that started with the adjournment of the hearing on 3 July 1997 and ended with the order of 19 March 1999 setting a new date for trial. That period had lasted more than a year and eight months. In addition, the date set for trial was 11   October 2000, which was a year and seven months later, even though the proceedings had already taken six years and approximately two months by the time that order was made. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant 800,000 escudos as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It dismissed the applicant's claims for pecuniary damage.   © 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