CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 novembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 91 November 2006 Sukobljević v. Croatia - 5129/03 Judgment 2.11.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Incompatibility with the Convention of a domestic decision given in the context of a compensatory remedy available to victims of excessively lengthy proceedings: violation   Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Incompatibility with the Convention of a domestic decision given in the context of a compensatory remedy available to victims of excessively lengthy proceedings: violation   Facts : In 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against his employer. In 2002 the municipal court stayed the proceedings on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant company. Shortly afterwards, the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the civil proceedings, to no avail. Both the civil and the bankruptcy proceedings are still pending. Law : In total, the case had been pending for almost nine years after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (in 1997), including almost four years after the decision of the Constitutional Court. In these circumstances, the Court was required to verify whether the way in which the Constitutional Court had interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the domestic law had produced consequences that were consistent with the principles of the Convention. If so, the Court would, when examining the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, refrain from dealing with the length of the proceedings subsequent to that decision. Otherwise, a genuine examination of the total length was warranted.The Court therefore examined the period amounting to some five years which had been subject to the Constitutional Court's review. In view of the significant delays attributable to the authorities the length of the proceedings conducted during that period had already been excessive. It had necessarily retained that character throughout the subsequent period. In these circumstances, to ask the applicant to lodge a second constitutional complaint would have overstretched his duties under Article   35(1) of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. See also Information Note No. 85, at p. 19 ( Scordino v. Italy , no. 36813/97 and Cocchiarella v. Italy , no.   64886/01 – violation).   © 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