The judicial authorities leaving a complex case inactive without taking any action for a long time, and consequently the excessive length of the proceedings, renders the complexity of the case factor ineffective and leads to a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.
According to the ECHR, in civil cases, even if the responsibility for pursuing the cases lies with the parties, the principle of party-led proceedings does not relieve the courts of their obligation to conclude cases expeditiously.[1] Accordingly, parties resorting to delaying maneuvers and tactics will not relieve the judicial authorities of their obligation to ensure that the proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time. The judicial authorities must take the necessary measures against these maneuvers and tactics to prevent the delay of proceedings.[2]
[1] Buchholz/Germany, 1981, pr.50(In this application, the respondent government argued that in the Federal Republic of Germany, as in all civil courts, cases before labor courts are subject to the principle of party-led proceedings. However, the ECHR did not accept this, on the grounds that the rule of party-led proceedings in civil courts does not exempt judicial authorities from ensuring the expeditious trial of cases as required by Article 6.)
[2] Mincheva/Bulgaria, 2010, pr.68(In this case, the ECtHR, accepting that the presence of the person who could not attend the hearing was necessary due to the nature of the dispute, expressed the opinion that the courts should insist more than the bodies responsible for summonses and that the inability to bring the person in a public service position in the army to the hearing should not be an insurmountable problem) ; Capuano/Italy, 1987, pr.25; Guincho/Portugal, 1984, pr.32; Union Alimentaria Sanders S.A./Spain, 1989, pr.35; (In these example decisions, the ECtHR also referred to the fact that the domestic laws of the relevant respondent states oblige judges to exercise diligence in expediting the case); Also, for the Constitutional Court’s individual application decision, see Constitutional Court Individual Application No:2012/13, 2013, pr.59. A text suggestion.
Why is Expert Legal Assistance Necessary in ECtHR and Constitutional Court Individual Applications?
According to ECtHR case-law, leaving a complex case inactive for a long time without any procedural steps by the judicial authorities leads to an extraordinary prolongation of the case, and this eliminates the “complexity” element, causing a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Although the principle of party preparation is applied in civil cases, this principle does not relieve the courts of their obligation to conduct proceedings expeditiously. Even if there are dilatory actions by the parties, the courts must take the necessary measures to manage the process effectively and expedite the proceedings (Buchholz/Germany; Mincheva/Bulgaria; Union Alimentaria Sanders; Constitutional Court 2012/13).
Violations of reasonable time are one of the most technical and evidence-intensive areas of individual applications. In determining this violation, it is necessary to analyze the waiting periods in the case file, demonstrate judicial inertia, concretize that the conduct of the parties does not negate the responsibility of the judicial authorities, and establish legal arguments consistent with case law. Therefore, avoiding procedural errors in applications to the ECHR and the Constitutional Court, fully meeting admissibility criteria, and powerfully demonstrating the violation are only possible with the support of an expert lawyer.
2M Hukuk Law Office, in claims of violations of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, increases the probability of success for the application by providing technical analysis of the judicial process, establishing links with case law, and offering professional legal support in powerfully structuring the application.
