CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 octobre 2011

.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. 145 October 2011 Giusti v. Italy - 13175/03 Judgment 18.10.2011 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Subject matter of domestic proceedings sufficiently significant: preliminary objection dismissed   Facts – In 1985 the applicants were sued by private persons in connection with the performance of a contract of sale providing for the transfer of title to a flat in part exchange for a plot of land. The proceedings ended in 2000 with a judgment of a court of appeal dismissing the applicants’ case. Before the European Court the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicants had not suffered any significant disadvantage. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): The case-law, which remained limited in this area, only partly established the criteria on which to verify whether the violation of a right attained the “minimum threshold” of seriousness to justify its examination by an international court. The assessment of that threshold was thus, by its very nature, relative and depended on the circumstances of the case. In order to verify whether the violation of a right attained that minimum threshold, it was necessary to take into account inter alia : the nature of the right allegedly breached, the seriousness of the impact of the alleged violation on the exercise of the right and/or the potential consequences of the violation on the applicant’s personal situation. In assessing those consequences, the Court would examine, in particular, the importance or outcome of the domestic proceedings. In the present case the applicants had complained about the length of civil proceedings concerning the performance of a contract that had lasted for fifteen years and about six months for two levels of jurisdiction. Such a duration was clearly incompatible with the “reasonable-time” requirement under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. In the Court’s view, in order to assess the seriousness of the consequences of that type of allegation, the importance of the case before the domestic courts could be decisive only if the amount involved was low or derisory. That was not so in the present case because the performance of the contract in question represented a significant value. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 in respect of the length of the proceedings. Article 41: EUR 6,300 to each of the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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