CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 février 1991

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; 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. February 1991 Angelucci v. Italy - 12666/87 Judgment 19.2.1991 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal 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: at the latest when the applicant appointed defence counsel. Close: at the earliest on the pronouncement that there was no case to answer, at the latest on expiry of the time-limit for an appeal by the prosecuting authorities against that pronouncement. Total: at least eight years and two months. B.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings: to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, which in this instance called for overall assessment. Case of some complexity, but applicant did nothing to slow down progress and there were long periods of inactivity attributable to the competent authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Pecuniary damage: no evidence of damage deriving from the violation found – claim dismissed. Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses: assessment made on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to the applicant (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