CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 November 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24581/21 Darren John CONQUER against the United Kingdom lodged on 7 May 2021 communicated on 23 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns delay in civil proceedings. The applicant brought a negligence claim before the Outer House of the Court of Session on 25 July 2006. The claim was subsequently adjourned between 24 October 2006 and 20 August 2011 at the applicant’s request. The Outer House dismissed the claim on 18 December 2012 after the applicant failed to attend a hearing to confirm whether he wished to pursue it. It was reinstated on 4 June 2013 at the applicant’s request. The defendant in the claim admitted liability on 27 October 2016. The Outer House gave judgment on quantum on 15 January 2020. The applicant appealed the quantum judgment to the Inner House of the Court of Session. The appeal was dismissed on 30 December 2020. On 5 March 2021, the applicant’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed by the Inner House. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted for an unreasonably long time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, ECHR 2006 ‑ VII; and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 173, 7 July 2015)? In particular, was there a remedy available to the applicant which would have enabled him to request the expedition of the proceedings and which would thus have prevented any unreasonable delay occurring?