CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 1993

.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. November 1993 Scopelliti v. Italy - 15511/89 Judgment 23.11.1993 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: 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 ("REASONABLE TIME") A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: institution of proceedings against A.N.A.S. in Catanzaro District Court. End: date on which District Court's judgment became final. Total: a little under eight years and three months. B.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings: to be determined with reference to the criteria laid down in Court's case-law and in light of the circumstances of case, which in this instance called for overall assessment. Investigation phase (more than two years and three months): drawing up of expert's report had given rise to some difficulties, but had taken - at the very least - almost sixteen months - expert had not sought extension of time-limit and had failed to appear at hearing - applicant under no obligation to request investigating judge to replace him - decision fell to investigating judge. Period before judgment reserved (more than three years and two months): records of hearings showed that adjournments had been requested jointly by parties - applicant had not challenged validity of those records - considerable periods of time had elapsed between majority of adjournments. Period before District Court's judgment became final (thirteen months and fifteen days): State not responsible as parties could have shortened this period by notifying decision to each other - reiteration of case-law on principio dispositivo . Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: no evidence. Non-pecuniary damage: finding of violation sufficient satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses Claim allowed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay to applicant specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (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