CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 1998

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. April 1998 Doustaly v. France - 26256/95 Judgment 23.4.1998 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings in the administrative courts: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: application to the Montpellier Administrative Court. End: judgment of the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal. Total: not including time taken for enforcement, nearly nine years. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings Complexity of case: not particularly complex. Conduct of applicant and national authorities: applicant not responsible for any delay – lengthy periods of inactivity imputable to judicial authorities. What was at stake in proceedings for applicant: amount claimed of vital importance and connected with applicant’s professional activity – particular expedition required. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: causal connection between finding of violation of Article 6 § 1 and alleged losses partly established – claims allowed in part. Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in full. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (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