State responsibility for breach of right to a trial within a reasonable time
Posted by Manuel Casal | Section Juris. Litigation , Jurisprudence
"Third
As for the reasonable duration of the process, the appellant, without being inconsistent on this point, the demand for sentencing on November 24, 1999 was filed on June 27, 2000 and then by six successive demands insisted on running the Magistracy judgment when it came to calculating the amount due in respect of real estate commissions. These requests had no effect until 18 June 2008, date on which, finally, the Magistracy gave the documents, repeatedly claimed, in order to calculate the amount specified and achieve full implementation of the sentence 1999.
If this duration seems, a priori, too, should not forget that in these cases, what is relevant is that judicial proceedings are carried out in a reasonable time.
This means that to rule on this point must, in each case, the weighted duration of different phases of the procedure, the complexity of the case, the bodies and judicial activity or attitude of the parties process.
In this case, from the moment the time lapse between the demand for implementation (27 June 2000) and the first effective reaction of the Magistracy (18 June 2008) appears as excessive a priori, be examine the reasons for this delay.
While the appellant submits that the question of the amount of fees due, that is, on what would be run by the slowness of the judge is not attributable to him and that nothing really can not justify, we to note that the motivations for the decisions of the High Court can not contradict these allegations, because it does not pronounce on this point.
Therefore, there is no element which allows to consider, nor have they provided evidence or clues that let suppose that the length of time elapsed between the demand for implementation of 2000 and the communication of the elements necessary for this to run in 2008 explained by the complexity of the case, the activity of the judge or the behavior of the parties. Thus, this term seems only attributable to the judge.
Under these conditions, we estimate the appeal of the appellant regarding the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and, therefore, necessary in response to the specific request of the appellant, said the responsibility of the State. "
Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated 21/12/09, speaker P. Subra, because, 2009-16 RE.
Tags: state responsibility , violation of right to jurisdiction
