Information Note on the Court’s case-law 38
January 2002
Laine v. France - 41476/98
Judgment 17.1.2002 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of proceedings relating to a winding-up: violation
Article 41
Just satisfaction
Length of civil proceedings: recognition of pecuniary damage
Facts: In February 1981 a receivership order was made by the commercial court against the applicant, who ran a transport firm in his own name. The court appointed a receiver and an insolvency judge. On application by the receiver the insolvency judge authorised the dismissal of the staff in February 1981, the sale of vehicles in April 1981 and in 1982 and the sale of a piece of land in May 1995. In mid-November 1981 the receiver furnished the insolvency judge with a brief summary of the assets and liabilities and of the reasons for the insolvency. In mid-March 1992 the insolvency judge was replaced. The receiver then took various steps and a number of documents, including a statement of liabilities, were prepared. In October 1995 the commercial court converted the receivership into compulsory bankruptcy in a judgment that was set aside on appeal. A year later the court made a bankruptcy order against the applicant. In the meantime the insolvency judge and the receiver had taken various steps, essentially concerning the creditors. In mid-November 1997 the commercial court declared that the bankrupt’s estate had been wound up.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – the period to be examined ran from the commercial court’s judgment in February 1981 to its judgment in mid-November 1997. It had therefore lasted almost sixteen years and nine months. The case had presented no special difficulties and the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to any increase in the delays. However, the period of inactivity of almost ten years and four months between mid-November 1981 and mid-March 1992 had been attributable to be national judicial authorities. In the absence of any explanation by the Government, that period of inactivity attributable to the State violated the “reasonable-time” requirement.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: the applicant had sustained pecuniary damage as a result of the exceptional length of the proceedings. That justified his being awarded the sums claimed to compensate for the failure to realise assets. The sum was to be revalued at the date of the decision winding up the proceedings. The Court, ruling on an equitable basis, awarded certain sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
© 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