CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 décembre 1996

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. December 1996 Duclos v. France - 20940/92, 20941/92 and 20942/92 Judgment 17.12.1996 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of three sets of civil proceedings: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 §   1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Periods to be taken into consideration Proceedings against Dieppe Health Insurance Office ( CPAM ): nine years and seven months. Proceedings against Union des assurances de Paris (UAP): eight years and nearly eight months. Proceedings against Dieppe Family Allowances Office ( CAF ): eight years, eight months and two weeks. B.   Reasonableness of length of proceedings Recapitulation of Court's case-law. 1.   Proceedings against Dieppe CPAM (a)   Complexity of case Case not complex. (b)   Conduct of the parties and of the judicial authorities Reasonableness of length of proceedings before social-security appeal tribunals assessed in same way as before ordinary civil courts. Applicant's conduct not beyond reproach - most of the delays nevertheless attributable to conduct of the administrative and judicial authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). 2.   Proceedings against the UAP (a)   Complexity of case Case not complex. (b)   Conduct of the parties and of the judicial authorities Applicant's conduct not beyond reproach - authorities responsible for some of the delays. (c)   What was at stake for applicant in proceedings Applicant's situation and what was at stake for him in proceedings had called for special expedition. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). 3.   Proceedings against Dieppe CAF (a)   Complexity of case Case not complex. (b)   Conduct of the parties and of the judicial authorities Applicant's conduct not beyond reproach - most of the delays nevertheless attributable to conduct of the administrative and judicial authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: claim for pecuniary damage dismissed.   Non-pecuniary damage assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State ordered to pay applicant a specified sum (unanimously).    B.   Recommendation sought by applicant: court had no jurisdiction to issue order to Contracting State. Conclusion : claim dismissed (unanimously). C.   Costs and expenses: applicant's claim allowed. Conclusion : respondent State ordered to pay specified sums to applicant (unanimously).      © 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