CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juillet 2004

.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 } .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 66 July 2004 Patrianakos v. Greece - 19449/02 Judgment 15.7.2004 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Inactivity of parties to civil proceedings: no violation Extracts : Article 6 § 1 – “With regard to the parties’ conduct, the Court notes that the latter’s failure to appear lay behind all the adjournments of the case before the Athens Court of First Instance, with the exception of the hearing scheduled for 15 October 1981, which was postponed on account of parliamentary elections. Those adjournments, coupled with the excessive delays with which the parties on each occasion requested that a new hearing date be fixed, were the cause of a delay of more than fourteen years for which the State cannot be held responsible. In particular, the Court notes that so long as the applicants showed no interest in resuming the proceedings before the Athens Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, those courts had no room for manoeuvre. According to the principles governing the organisation of proceedings and the responsibility of the parties, set out in Articles 106 and 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, progress in proceedings depends entirely on the parties’ diligence; if the latter abandon the proceedings temporarily or definitively, the courts cannot of their own motion oblige them to resume proceedings. This situation cannot be compared with the case of ongoing proceedings, where the courts must ensure that they follow the proper course by, for example, acting attentively when asked to agree to a request for adjournment, hear witnesses or monitor the time-limits established for the preparation of an expert’s report. In addition, the Court notes that the applicant took a year and more than two months to appeal on points of law; the Government cannot be held responsible for that delay. As to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court considers that they cannot be criticised for periods of inactivity or unjustified delay. The Court notes that on each occasion that the applicants asked for a new hearing date, the relevant courts fixed a date without undue delay. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance gave judgment within seven months and five days of the date on which the applicant requested a new date for a hearing, which he attended. As to the proceedings before the court of appeal, those lasted one year, one month and eleven days; finally, the Court of Cassation ruled within a period of one year, three months and twenty-one days.   In the Court’s opinion, those times are far from being unreasonable.”   © 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