CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 septembre 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 10 September 1999 Piccinini v. Italy (no.2) (dec.) - 28936/95 Decision 14.9.1999 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Continuation of domestic proceedings already been found excessively long: admissible The applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission about the length of proceedings. The Commission concluded, in its report of 11 January 1994, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, following which the Committee of Ministers passed a Resolution on 15 November 1996. However, the domestic proceedings are still pending, more than three years and nine months after the Commission’s report. Admissible under Article 6 § 1: The facts of which the applicant complained were new facts which had not been taken into consideration in the Commission’s report. Furthermore, the length of the second stage of the proceedings did not have to be excessive in itself since the fact that a violation had been found in respect of the first stage amounted to an aggravating circumstance. [This case raises the same problem as the following decisions of 21 September 1999: Rotondi v. Italy (dec) , (no. 38113/97); and S.A.GE.MA. S.N.C. v. Italy (dec.), (no. 40184/98). In the Rotondi case the second stage of the proceedings lasted more than one year and eight months, while in the S.A.GE.MA s.n.c. it lasted two years and two months. Admissible under Article 6 § 1.]   © 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