The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute. for Article 6.1, in its ‘civil’ limb, to be applicable there must be a dispute over a ‘right’ that can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. The dispute must be genuine and serious. It may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question
Citations:
30979/96, 43 ECHR 2000-VII, (2001) EHRR 52, [2000] ECHR 352, [2000] ECHR 353
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Cited by:
Cited – B R v Poland ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The claimant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had exceeded a reasonable time . .
Cited – Stockholms Forsakrings- Och Skadestandsjuridik Ab v Sweden ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and . .
Cited – Umek v Slovenia ECHR 8-Jan-2009
The claimant said that the defendant country had failed to provide her with an effective remedy for delay in proceedings before its courts. She had sought damages after being involved in a fire. She began proceedings in 1989, and they were concluded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165898