CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 février 1999

.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. 3 February 1999 Laino v. Italy [GC] - 33158/96 Judgment 18.2.1999 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: violation   Facts :The applicant, an Italian national, was born in 1960 and lives in Naples. On 15   March 1990 the applicant petitioned the Naples District Court for judicial separation from his wife, Mrs   R. He also requested the court to determine the arrangements for custody of the children and use of the family home. On 22   March 1990 the presiding judge of the court set down for 12   July 1990 the hearing on the attempt that had been made to reach a settlement. After finding that the attempt had failed, the presiding judge provisionally awarded custody of the children (born in 1984 and 1988) and use of the house to Mrs   R., granted the father access twice a week and ordered him to pay Mrs R. maintenance. After six hearings, three of which were adjourned at the applicant’s request, the judge responsible for preparing the case for trial ordered, on 15 December 1994, that the case file should be sent to the District Court at Nola (province of Naples), which now had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The date set for the hearing before that court was not until 8   May   1997. On that day, however, the proceedings were adjourned by the court of its own motion to 10   July 1997 because the judge was absent. The parties filed their pleadings on 13   November 1997, and the hearing before the relevant division was held on 8   May 1998. In a judgment of 27   May 1998, the text of which was deposited with the registry on that day, the court pronounced the couple judicially separated, confirmed the provisional measures regarding custody of the children and use of the family home and increased the maintenance. Neither of the parties appealed. The applicant complained that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, had been disregarded and that the length of the proceedings had also infringed his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention. Law : Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: According to the Court’s case-law, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings has to be assessed, in particular, in the light of the complexity of the case and of the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities. In cases relating to civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration and special diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the right to respect for family life. The Court noted one period of delay which could not be attributed to the respondent State and found that the case was not particularly complex. As to the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case, the Court considered that, having regard to what had been at stake for the applicant (judicial separation and determination of the arrangements for custody of the children and access rights), the domestic courts had failed to act with the special diligence required by Article6 §   1 of the Convention in such cases. The various periods of inactivity attributable to the State, in particular the ones from 25   November 1993 to 15 December 1994 and from the latter date to 10 July 1997, had failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Having regard also to the total duration of the proceedings, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 8 of the Convention: Having regard to the finding in respect of Article 6 §   1, the Court held that it was unnecessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article   8. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). Application of Article 41 of the Convention: Mr Laino had claimed 70,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for the non-pecuniary damage which he alleged that he had sustained. The Court held that the applicant had undoubtedly sustained non-pecuniary damage. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it decided to award him ITL   25,000,000.The applicant also claimed reimbursement of ITL 16,305,440 in respect of his costs and expenses before the Commission and the Court.   © 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