Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
September 1998
Portington v. Greece - 28523/95
Judgment 23.9.1998
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of criminal appeal 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
A.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: when appeal lodged.
End: when appeal finally heard and judgment delivered by Court of Appeal.
Total: almost eight years.
B.Applicable criteria
Complexity of case: complexity of issues involved cannot explain length of proceedings – noteworthy that it took trial court just one day to hear case and deliver judgment and Court of Appeal also one day to dispose of appeal.
Conduct of applicant: disagreement between parties on whether all adjournments of hearings requested by applicant – nevertheless, even if all delays attributable to requests made by him and he may be considered on that account to be responsible for some of delay, this cannot justify length of periods in between individual hearings and certainly not total length of appeal proceedings.
Conduct of national authorities: several periods of inactivity in appeal proceedings – after applicant had filed appeal, case lay dormant for over one year and seven months until it was listed for first hearing – procedural measures which had to be taken in order to have case file transferred to appellate court cannot explain such excessive period of delay – furthermore, case relisted on four occasions – this gave rise to periods of inactivity in between dates set for hearing – Government’s submissions that length of one of those periods was caused by lawyers’ strikes dismissed since over five months elapsed after end of strikes and before case was listed – this delay also attributed to conduct of national authorities – these and remaining periods of inactivity cannot be excused by Court of Appeal’s volume of work – Article 6 § 1 imposes on Contracting States duty to organise their judicial systems in such way that their courts can meet each of its requirements.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: Judgment constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
B.Costs and expenses: Claim allowed in part.
Conclusion: finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for alleged non-pecuniary damage; respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant for costs and expenses (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