ROBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOMDISSENTING OPINION OF
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: July 4, 1996
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
DISSENTING OPINION OF
MRS. J. LIDDY, MM. G.B. REFFI,
I. BÉKÉS, G. RESS, K. HERNDL
We are of the opinion that in the particular circumstances of the
applicants' case Article 6 of the Convention required that all issues
in the civil proceedings between them and their neighbours, including
the cost matter, had to be determined within a reasonable time.
It is true that in previous cases the Commission has rejected as
incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae complaints under
Article 6 of the Convention concerning cost proceedings (No. 12446/86,
Dec. 5.5.88, D.R. 56, p. 229; and No. 18623/91, Dec. 2.12.91).
However, in these cases the plaintiffs abandoned their substantive
claims and, therefore, the cost proceedings were not a continuation of
a civil dispute as it was in the present case. Moreover, the
complaints in these cases concerned the lack of an oral hearing, and
not the length of proceedings.
The Court has found that the length of the particular
"enforcement" proceedings, under Portuguese law, should be taken into
account when considering a complaint under Article 6 of the length of
civil proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., Silva Pontes judgment of 23 March
1994, Series A No. 286A, p. 14, para. 33). Furthermore, the same
approach was adopted by the Commission as regards execution
proceedings, which were independent and followed the proceedings on the
merits in a civil case, when deciding on the reasonableness of the
length of the proceedings as a whole (No. 15797/89, Comm. Report
6.7.95; and also No. 24295/94, Comm. Report 6.7.95).
In the present case the applicants did not abandon their
substantive claims and, accordingly, the cost proceedings followed the
proceedings on the merits of a dispute which doubtlessly involved the
determination of the applicants' civil rights and obligations.
We therefore tend to the view that in the particular
circumstances of the present case, without necessarily being applicable
with all its normal fair and public trial safeguards (see, for example,
Eur. Court HR, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June
1993, Series A No. 263), Article 6 of the Convention does require that
all stages of the applicants' civil dispute, including the cost matter,
be concluded within a reasonable time. Such an approach is consonant
with the Contracting States' obligation under the Convention to secure
the real and practical enjoyment of the rights enshrined therein. The
amount which was at stake for the applicants in the cost proceedings
was at least £ 6,000 whereas their income was apparently modest, legal
aid having been granted to them. Therefore, in practical terms the
proceedings were not over for the applicants until the matter of costs
was not resolved.
If this approach was adopted by the majority, it could have found
a violation of Article 6 as even the length of the cost proceedings
taken alone was far from "reasonable" in the present case.
Thus, significant periods of delay are imputable to the State.
A delay between February and November 1992 was apparently due to a
factual misunderstanding affecting the assessment of the applicants'
means, which was admitted by the Department of Social Security. Also,
it took more than 14 months, between January 1993 and 10 April 1994,
for the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to find that leave to appeal
was not required in the applicants' case.
We could then leave open the question of the extent to which, if
any, the delay between April 1994 and May 1995, which was caused by the
applicant's difficulties in tracing and obtaining the necessary notes
and transcripts from the courts, was attributable to the applicants or
to the Government, having regard to the fact that the applicants were
acting in person and without legal aid.
We consider that no convincing explanation has been advanced by
the respondent Government for at least the aforementioned delays of
almost two years.
(Or. English)
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
