CASE OF KAJAS v. FINLANDDISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BORREGO BORREGO
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: March 7, 2006
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BORREGO BORREGO
I regret that I am unable to agree with the majority of the Chamber.
In the case of Debono v. Malta (no. 34539/02, judgment of 7 February 2006) the majority of the Chamber decided that a period of two years, nine months and thirteen days in appeal proceedings had been excessive.
In that case I wrote a dissenting opinion which includes a number of observations on the question of reasonable time and the Court.
In the present case the majority of the Chamber decided that a total of less than five years for domestic proceedings was excessive. The Court, it must be said, has taken more than five years to examine the case. It has particularly identified as excessive a period of two years and a few weeks for appeal proceedings (see paragraphs 21 and 26).
In my opinion the periods of time considered reasonable by the Court are becoming shorter and shorter.
To my great regret, I feel obliged to repeat and emphasise the content of my dissenting opinion in the above-mentioned Debono case. I would only like to add this one comment: The day will come when someone will say “Look, the emperor is not wearing any clothes!”