CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mars 1992

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; 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. March 1992 Éditions Périscope v. France - 11760/85 Judgment 26.3.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of the examination in administrative courts of an action for damages against the State: 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.   Applicability 1.   Existence of a dispute (contestation) over a right Trial concerned compensation for damage which the State had allegedly caused the applicant company by refusing to accord it various advantages which it granted to competing undertakings - argument based on fault on the part of the administration sufficiently tenable since the two courts before which the case came found the action admissible as they ruled on the merits of the dispute. 2.   Was the disputed right a civil right? Subject-matter of the applicant company's action was "pecuniary" in nature and action was founded on alleged infringement of rights which were likewise pecuniary rights - right in question was therefore a civil right. Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance 1.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: institution of proceedings in the Paris Administrative Court. End: delivery of judgment of the Conseil d’État . Total: over eight years. 2.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of the length of proceedings - to be determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in this instance called for an overall assessment. Lapse of time not "reasonable" here because case was not particularly complex and applicant company made repeated attempts to compel the ministries concerned to submit their memorials more rapidly. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: no causal connection with violation found - claim for compensation dismissed. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement assessed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum for 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