Proceedings before civil courts lasted more than 9 years. Violation of reasonable length of the proceedings

The national courts applying the “Pinto” law found no violation of the reasonable duration of the trial and did not award damages to the applicant.

The Court considered that neither the applicant’s conduct nor any other fact or argument put forward by the Government can justify the length of the proceedings at the national level (which lasted more than nine years in total).

The ECHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and held that Italy was to pay the applicant EUR 2,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,132 for cost and expenses.

PROVISION

Article 6 par. 1

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The proceedings before civil courts lasted over 9 years. The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The Government submitted that the applicant had not correctly exhausted the available remedies via the “Pinto” proceedings, and that he had failed to prove the non-pecuniary damage stemming from the excessive length of the main proceedings. The Government also submitted that the applicant was no longer a “victim” of a violation of Article 6 § 1 in light of the “Pinto” courts’ judgments on his claim. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT…

The Court observed that the applicant’s victim status depends on whether the redress afforded to him at the domestic level was adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the Convention.

The Court noted that in the present case the “Pinto” courts did not find a violation of the relevant provisions of the Convention and that the applicant was not awarded any redress at the domestic level.

The Government submitted that the applicant’s dilatory conduct had substantially contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. In particular, he had failed to act in a timely manner on several occasions, causing the stay of the proceedings for at least one year and four months.

The Court reiterated that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that neither the applicant’s conduct nor any other fact or argument put forward by the Government can justify the length of the proceedings at the national level (which lasted more than nine years in total). It follows that the Government’s objection in this respect should be dismissed.

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The ECHR held that Italy was to pay the applicant EUR 2,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,132 for costs and expenses.