CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 décembre 1995

.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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; 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. December 1995 Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy - 19753/92 Judgment 4.12.1995 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: no 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.] A.   Period to be taken into consideration Proceedings brought more than fifteen years before and still pending. B.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings: to be assessed in light of circumstances of case and having regard to criteria laid down in Court's case-law, in particular complexity of case and conduct of applicant and relevant authorities. Case not complex.   Summary stage completed with acceptable expedition. Relevant authorities responsible for certain delays, but in instant case their conduct not primarily responsible for length of proceedings. Very large number of adjournments requested by applicants – either alone or in agreement with defendant. " Principio dispositivo " does not dispense courts from ensuring compliance with requirements of Article   6, but makes parties responsible for taking initiative – applicants never took steps to have their case dealt with more speedily. Revision of Code of Civil Procedure and institution of justices of the peace: not appropriate to speculate at present stage about measures in force only since April and May 1995. Applicants' conduct leads Court to declare their complaint unfounded. Conclusion : no violation (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