CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mars 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. March 1994 Muti v. Italy - 14146/88 Judgment 23.3.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings in the Court of Audit: 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: date of appeal to the Court of Audit. End: filing of judgment. Total: a little over eight years and seven months. B.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings to be determined with reference to criteria laid down in Court's case-law and in light of circumstances of the case, which in this instance called for overall assessment. Court of Audit's excessive workload could not be taken into consideration since Article 6 § 1 imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements. Applicant's conduct: Government had not shown that possibility afforded to Mr Muti of speeding up the proceedings was a real one - there was no proof that such a step would have had any prospects of success, regard being had in addition to discretionary power of competent judicial authority and its excessive workload. It did not appear that applicant's alleged passivity contributed to slowing down proceedings. Two main periods of stagnation attributable to respondent State: Principal State Counsel had waited four years and four months before requesting expert opinion, and a period of two years and eight months had then elapsed before the medical report was filed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 A.   Damage Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses before the Convention organs Claim allowed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to the applicant (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