Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
February 1991
Vernillo v. France - 11889/85
Judgment 20.2.1991
Article 6
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of civil proceedings: no 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.THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)
Possibility of bringing action for compensation against State under Article L 781-1 of Code of Judicial Organisation – State's liability very narrowly circumscribed under that provision – applicants had not claimed to be victims of a "denial of justice" or of "gross negligence" – French courts had not interpreted concept of gross negligence sufficiently broadly to include every delay exceeding the "reasonable time" laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – plea unfounded.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION (reasonable time)
A.Period to be considered
Starting-point: date on which applicants were summoned before Nice tribunal de grande instance.
Close: delivery of Court of Cassation's judgment.
Result: about seven and a half years.
B.Relevant criteria
Reasonableness of length of proceedings – to be assessed in light of particular circumstances of case and having regard to the criteria laid down in Court's case-law.
Complexity of case: slight.
Conduct of the parties: had done much to prolong proceedings.
Conduct of judicial authorities: at least two periods might seem abnormal, but had not been so long as to warrant conclusion that total duration of proceedings had been excessive.
Conclusion: no violation (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