Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
November 1993
Scopelliti v. Italy - 15511/89
Judgment 23.11.1993
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of civil 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 ("REASONABLE TIME")
A.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: institution of proceedings against A.N.A.S. in Catanzaro District Court.
End: date on which District Court's judgment became final.
Total: a little under eight years and three months.
B.Applicable criteria
Reasonableness of length of proceedings: to be determined with reference to the criteria laid down in Court's case-law and in light of the circumstances of case, which in this instance called for overall assessment.
Investigation phase (more than two years and three months): drawing up of expert's report had given rise to some difficulties, but had taken - at the very least - almost sixteen months - expert had not sought extension of time-limit and had failed to appear at hearing - applicant under no obligation to request investigating judge to replace him - decision fell to investigating judge.
Period before judgment reserved (more than three years and two months): records of hearings showed that adjournments had been requested jointly by parties - applicant had not challenged validity of those records - considerable periods of time had elapsed between majority of adjournments.
Period before District Court's judgment became final (thirteen months and fifteen days): State not responsible as parties could have shortened this period by notifying decision to each other - reiteration of case-law on principio dispositivo.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50
A.Damage
Pecuniary damage: no evidence.
Non-pecuniary damage: finding of violation sufficient satisfaction.
B.Costs and expenses
Claim allowed.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay to applicant specified sum in respect of 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