Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

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

ROBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOMDISSENTING OPINION OF

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: July 4, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

                          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)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846