CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 octobre 2022

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Legal summary March 2023 Fabbri and Others v. San Marino (referral) - 345/21, 6319/21, 6321/21 et al. Judgment 18.10.2022 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Civil rights and obligations Inability of injured parties to criminal proceedings to have their civil claims determined, as entitled by law, as a result of judicial authorities’ total inactivity which led to prosecution being time-barred: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicants, injured parties to criminal proceedings, were prevented from having their associated civil claims determined, following the judicial authorities’ complete inactivity which led to the prosecution becoming time-barred. In a judgment of 18 October 2022 , a Chamber of the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the applicants’ right of access to court due to the domestic courts’ failure to consider their civil-party claims being entirely attributable to the judicial authorities, whose total inactivity had resulted in the prosecution becoming time-barred. In consequence, the applicants had been denied the possibility of having their civil claims determined via the avenue which they had chosen to pursue and which had been at their disposal in the domestic legal order. The Chamber noted that in Petrella v. Italy ( 24340/07 , 18 March 2021) the Court had considered that in Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania ([GC], 41720/13 , 25 June 2019), the Grand Chamber had found no failures on the part of the State during the criminal proceedings, which had been discontinued, resulting in a finding of no violation of Article 6 under the notions of access to court and length of proceedings. In the Chamber’s view, relying on Petrella , in the extreme circumstances of the present case, the applicants could not be expected to pursue a separate civil action, even more so given that such an action would probably require the collection of any, or new, evidence, at the hands of the applicants, and that the determination of civil responsibility would likely be difficult to prove given the trespass of time. On 6 March 2023 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request. (See also Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], 41720/13, 25 June 2019, Legal Summary ; Petrella v. Italy , 24340/07, 18 March 2021, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .