CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .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. 141 May 2011 Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.) - 16231/07 Decision 24.5.2011 [Section II] Article 34 Victim Intervening domestic award in respect of length-of-proceedings complaint: loss of victim status   Facts – The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court about the length of civil proceedings he had brought in respect of a road-traffic accident. The complaint was upheld and the Constitutional Court ordered the courts concerned to bring the impugned proceedings to a conclusion as soon as possible. It also declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the delays. The Commission for Compensation offered to pay the equivalent of EUR 500, which the applicant refused. Law – Article 34: The Court reiterated that an applicant’s status as a “victim” depends on whether the domestic authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress. The Constitutional Court’s finding that the applicant’s right to a determination of his claim within a reasonable time had been violated had acknowledged the breach complained of thus effectively satisfying the first of these two conditions. As to the second – whether the redress afforded was adequate and sufficient – the Court noted that in length-of-proceedings cases, States which, like Serbia, had opted for a remedy designed both to expedite proceedings and afford compensation were free to award amounts which – while lower than those awarded by the Court – were not unreasonable. Although the actual sum awarded to the applicant was lower than awarded for comparable delays in the European Court’s case-law, it could nevertheless be considered reasonable, having regard to the duration of the proceedings, the value of the award judged in the light of the local standard of living, and the fact that the award was made and paid more promptly than if the matter fell to be decided by the European Court under Article   41 of the Convention. It was also of relevance that the applicant’s claim had been repeatedly considered at two instances and, crucially, that the impugned proceedings had been concluded less than two months from the date of the Constitutional Court’s decision. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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