CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 avril 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     259   6.4.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 6 April 2000 in the case of Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal (No. 35382/97 ), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company 1,500,000 Portuguese escudos for damage.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant company, Comingersoll – Comércio e Indústria de Equipamentos S.A., is a public company formed under Portuguese law whose registered office is at Carnaxide (Portugal).   It had in its possession eight bills of exchange which it had received from the A. Lda company for a total of 6,812,106 Portuguese escudos. As the bills were not honoured when due, the applicant company issued enforcement proceedings against A. Lda in the Lisbon Court of First Instance on 11 October 1982 to recover the outstanding amounts. A. Lda lodged a defence to the enforcement proceedings on 6 December 1982 and on 19 June 1986 the court of first instance found in its favour. The applicant company appealed against that decision to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which on 28 February 1989 overturned the impugned decision and decided to reject the defence. A. Lda appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court but its appeal was dismissed without any further right of appeal on 11 March 1992. The case file was subsequently returned to the Lisbon Court of First Instance.   Meanwhile, on 2 February 1984 another company issued a summons opposing enforcement. The summons was stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings against A. Lda, and is still pending before the Lisbon Court of First Instance.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 February 1997. The Commission decided to communicate the case to the Government. On 1   November 1998 the application was transferred to the Court and assigned to the Fourth Section, which declared it admissible on 8 December 1998. On 28 September 1999, considering that the case gave rise to an issue of principle concerning the application of Article 41, namely whether legal entities (as opposed to individuals) could claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.       Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Georg Ress (German), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Judges ,   and also Michele de Salvia , Registrar ,.   3.   Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings and relied on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 of the Convention   The Court found that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings that sufficed by themselves to justify the conclusion that the proceedings had been unreasonably long. A period of seventeen years and five months for a final decision that had yet to be delivered in proceedings issued on the basis of an authority to execute – which by their very nature needed to be dealt with expeditiously – could not be said to have been reasonable. In the light of the circumstances of the case, the Court thus concluded that the reasonable-time requirement had not been complied with and, consequently, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 41 of the Convention   The applicant company had sought PTE 20,000,000 for pecuniary damage and PTE   5,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The Government contended, in particular, that a commercial company could not claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage.   The Court pointed out at the outset that a judgment in which it found a breach imposed a legal obligation under the Convention on the respondent State to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences.   Among the matters which the Court took into account when assessing compensation were pecuniary damage, that is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of the alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, that is reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the violation, and other non-pecuniary loss.   In the case before it, after finding that the applicant company had not been able prove any pecuniary damage, the Court sought to determine whether it could claim compensation for any non-pecuniary damage.   In the light of its own case-law and the practice of the Committee of Ministers and the member States of the Council of Europe, the Court held that the possibility that a commercial company might be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage could not be ruled out.   The Court reiterated that the Convention had to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to guarantee rights that were practical and effective. Since the principle form of redress which the Court could order was pecuniary compensation, it necessarily had to be empowered, if the right guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention was to be effective, to award pecuniary compensation for non-pecuniary damage to commercial companies too.   In the case before it, the fact that the proceedings in issue had continued beyond a reasonable time must have caused Comingersoll S.A., its directors and shareholders considerable inconvenience and prolonged uncertainty, if only in the conduct of the company’s everyday affairs. The applicant company had in particular been deprived of the possibility of recovering its claim earlier and that claim remained outstanding. In that connection, the Court considered that the applicant company had been left in a state of uncertainty that justified making an award of compensation.   Ruling on an equitable basis, as provided for by Article 41, the Court awarded the applicant company PTE 1,500,000 for the damage sustained.   Judge Rozakis, joined by Judges Bratza, Caflisch and Vajić, expressed a separate opinion and this is annexed to the judgment.   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.