Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
April 1998
Doustaly v. France - 26256/95
Judgment 23.4.1998
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of proceedings in the administrative courts: 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.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: application to the Montpellier Administrative Court.
End: judgment of the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal.
Total: not including time taken for enforcement, nearly nine years.
B.Reasonableness of length of proceedings
Complexity of case: not particularly complex.
Conduct of applicant and national authorities: applicant not responsible for any delay – lengthy periods of inactivity imputable to judicial authorities.
What was at stake in proceedings for applicant: amount claimed of vital importance and connected with applicant’s professional activity – particular expedition required.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage
Pecuniary damage: causal connection between finding of violation of Article 6 § 1 and alleged losses partly established – claims allowed in part.
Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in full.
B.Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy