DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE STRÁŽNICKÁ

JOINED BY JUDGE SIR NICOLAS BRATZA

I have voted against the finding that there was no violation of Article 6 § 1 in the present case. Although the case is on the borderline, I consider that an overall length totalling 4 years and 2 months for one instance was excessive.

It is true that the case was of a certain complexity. It is true, too, that the delays which resulted from the lawyers’ strikes cannot be attributed to the State authorities. However, as is noted in the judgment, while the second strike lasted for only 4 days, the subsequent hearing was fixed for a date more than 10 months after the strike had ended, a delay which, like the majority of the Court, I find to be excessive and to be imputable, at least in part, to the State authorities.

In addition, I note that the preliminary hearing, initially scheduled for 26 April 1994, was adjourned first until 5 July 1994, then until 18 October 1994. The hearings of 21 June and 16 January 1997 were postponed respectively until 23 July 1996 and 18 June 1997 by reason of the failure of the authorities to serve the summonses to appear. The Government have provided no convincing explanation for these delays, which amounted to a global period of approximately one year.

In these circumstances, I find that the proceedings were not determined within a reasonable time and that there has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.