CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 2000

.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 23 October 2000 Stravoravdis v. Greece (dec.) - 45140/98 Decision 12.10.2000 [Section II] Article 34 Victim Status of victim recognised in respect of only part of civil and criminal proceedings Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: inadmissible Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: inadmissible The applicant’s mother was injured in a road-traffic accident in March 1991. In July 1991 she sought provisional measures which resulted in her being awarded a certain sum in October 1991. In October 1992 she brought a new action in tort in the civil courts against the driver and his or her insurers. On 23 November 1993, the date fixed for trial following an initial adjournment, the lawyer acting for the applicant’s mother informed the court that she had died. That brought the proceedings to an end. On 11 July 1995 the applicant, acting as her mother’s sole heir, asked the court to reopen the proceedings. At a hearing in October 1995 the applicant sought an adjournment of that application so that the court could hear at the same time a fresh claim for damages which he had brought in December 1995. The hearing of the two joined actions took place in June 1996. In a decision of 30 October 1996 the court adjourned the examination of the merits of those actions so that an exhibit could be produced. On 5 December 1997 an agreement was made between the applicant and the insurance company following a proposal made by the applicant in March 1997. Under the agreement, in consideration for the payment of a sum by the insurers, the applicant waived any further civil claims and the right to be joined as a civil party in criminal proceedings against the driver. In the meantime the case file concerning the accident had been sent to the public prosecutor's office in June 1991. On 22 February 1994, while the proceedings were under way, the applicant had declared that he wished to be joined as a civil party in the proceedings against the driver. The investigation ended in May 1995 and the driver was committed for trial before the criminal court. In September 1995 the criminal court sentenced the driver to a term of imprisonment and ordered him to pay the small sum that had been claimed at the time by the applicant as compensation for his non-pecuniary damage. The driver appealed. The file was transferred to the public prosecutor's office at the court of appeal in May 1996. The hearing of the appeal was adjourned twice. Meanwhile, the applicant and the insurance company had reached the friendly settlement referred to above. In March 1998 the court of appeal gave its decision on the driver’s prison sentence, and the applicant’s waiver of his right to be joined as a civil party as a result of the friendly settlement was read out. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: With regard to whether the applicant was a victim, the applicant could only claim to have been a victim in respect of the civil proceedings over the period from 11 July 1995, when he requested the reopening of the proceedings, until 5   December 1997, when the agreement was made with the insurance company. As to the criminal proceedings, the applicant had been joined as a civil party in February 1994 and had claimed damages. He had not at that stage requested the reopening of the civil proceedings. He had quantified his claims in September 1995 after applying for the civil proceedings to be reopened and, despite the virtually symbolic nature of the amount claimed in the criminal proceedings, had to be regarded as having had standing in those proceedings from 22 February 1994 to 5 December 1997, the date of the waiver. As to the merits the civil proceedings to be taken into consideration had lasted two years, four months and twenty-four days. However that could not be considered excessive in the circumstances of the case. In the criminal proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration had lasted three years, nine months and thirteen days. In the circumstances of the case, that period before two levels of jurisdiction had not exceeded a reasonable time: 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