Untitled

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #1, 2008 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N1, 2008
tributed decisively to slowing down the proceedings
via groundlessly challenging the reporting
judge on three occasions, as well as
her failures to attend the hearings, and her
refusal to attend for the ... psychiatric examination.
Therefore, no violation of Article 6(1)
was found. 47
It is apt to mention that a State is not responsible
for the protracted proceedings which
were caused due to the applicant even in
those cases, when the latter acts within the
framework of the law.
For instance, in the case Kemmache v.
France the Government argued that the applicant
contributed to prolonged proceedings
due to the seeking the adjournment of the proceedings.
The applicant clarified, that he was
incapable to attend the hearing due to the
psychiatric conditions. The European Court
found, that a State can not be held responsible
for the protracted proceedings, if that was
caused by the applicant. 48
The Strasbourg Court considers and assesses
each stage of the legal proceedings
separately. Respectively, a Government is required
to submit detailed clarifications in respect
with each of the stages of the proceedings.
In particular, in the case Beaumartin v.
France the Court concluded that the applicants
prolonged the proceedings by erroneously
bringing proceedings in the Court which
had no jurisdiction over the case. They also
contributed to the length of the proceedings
by not filing their pleadings until four months
after lodging their appeal. The applicants were
responsible for a certain period of time (9
months), however for the rest of the time no
explanations have been forthcoming from the
Government (the respondent ministry waited
twenty months after the commencement of
proceedings before filing pleadings and the
court dealing with the case took over five
years to hold its first hearing). Respectively,
the Court did not regard as “reasonable” in
this instance a lapse of time of eight years and
four months and therefore found that there
has been a violation of Article 6 para 1. 49
A state can refer to the actions of the applicant
in order to justify its own position; however
this way the state will avoid responsibility
only on the time period which was protracted
due to the acts of the applicant and not with
regard to the entire proceedings.
The analysis of the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights proves that different
standards are established for assessing
the acts of an applicant in civil and criminal
cases.
The requirements with regard to state are
to a large extent stricter in respect with the
criminal cases than with respect of considering
civil cases. This can be explained with the
fact that expeditious and efficient proceedings
in civil cases depends on the initiative and
determination of the parties to a case. Respectively,
the responsibility is to a large extent
shared by the parties to a case.
In the case Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy the
Government submitted that the length of the
proceedings was entirely attributable to the
applicants. In Italy it was “essentially for the
parties to take the initiative with regard to the
progress of civil proceedings” (principio dispositivo).
The European Court shared the view
of the Government and added that the “principio
dispositivo” does not dispense the courts
from ensuring compliance with the requirements
of “a reasonable time“. 50
In civil, as well as in criminal cases, the
courts shall ensure meeting procedural obligations
by the parties through general coordination.
The appropriate legislation shall be
giving to the courts the possibility of exercising
the reasonable control over the parties to
a case. Swift legal proceedings do not fall only
within the interest of the parties to a case. A
state shall itself be interested in considering
each case in a short term, in order to, on the
one hand, avoid the backlogging the courts
and on the other side to save the state resources.
Therefore, a state shall not wait for
the initiatives of parties, but shall establish
such a flexible system which would ensure that
the case is not being continued for long.
One of the problematic issues, which surfaces
in civil cases when assessing the acts
of the applicant, is the actions of the other
party. May state be responsible for that In
this respect the following cases are interesting
to consider:
In the case Vernillo v. France the European
Court established that both parties contributed
to protracting the case proceedings, which was
expressed in the following: the Torzuolis, the
plaintiffs, took four and a half months to reply in
the tribunal de grande instance; they filed their
second set of appeal pleadings three and a half
120