NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

limits applicable to all cases. 603 Unreasonableness of time limits is always determined on a case-to-case basis. Nevertheless, in evaluating the length of the proceedings, the Court uses a special methodology, which can be derived from its practice. The time to be taken into consideration starts running with the institution of proceedings in civil cases, and in criminal cases with the charge. 604 Time ceases to run when the proceedings have been concluded at the highest possible instance, when the determination becomes final and the judgment has been executed. In addition, taking into account ratione temporis criterion, the Court examines the length of the proceedings from the date on which a contracting state ratified the Convention. In some cases, when handling continuous violations, the Court also takes into account the state and progress of the case at that date. 605 The Court assesses the reasonableness of the length of proceedings in light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: 1) the complexity of the case; 2) the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities; and 3) what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute. 606 The Court stated, in Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain , 607 that the applicant’s duty is only to “show diligence in carrying out the procedural steps relating to him, to refrain from using delaying tactics and to avail himself of the scope afforded by domestic law for shortening the proceedings”. 608 It does not have a duty to take action, which is not appropriate for that purpose. The proceedings in the case of Agrokompleks v. Ukraine 609 lasted for over seven years. The Court observed that the applicant company had had a significant pecuniary interest at stake. The case was, nonetheless, factually and legally complex. At the same time, the major delay could be explained mainly by the authorities’ efforts to have the amount of the debt owed to the applicant company revised, despite a final judicial decision in that regard. In addition, no delays in the proceedings were attributable to the applicant company. Therefore, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement, envisaged by Article 6 of the Convention. Under the general rule, the Court accepts that the proceedings on a national level, including three levels of jurisdiction, should not exceed five to six years. 610 However, there are exceptions to this imperative. The two sets of the proceedings in the case of Sacilor Lormines v. France 611 lasted, respectively, four years and three years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, which were described above, the Court considered that such periods were inconsistent with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement. On the other 603 The legislation of the CoE member states in this respect is different. The Court itself considers that a reasonable length is on average 5-6 years period. 604 HUBÁLKOVÁ, E. Přehled judikatury…, 2006, cited above, p. 55. 605 Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 32283/04, 27 May 2008. 606 Agrokompleks, cited above. 607 Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain , 7 July 1989, Series a no. 157. 608 Ibid ., § 35. 609 Agrokompleks, cited above. 610 ČERNÝ, cited bove. 611 Sacilor-Lormines, cited above.

113