Does the conclusion of a case within the target period determined by domestic law prevent the assertion of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time? A brief assessment; Undoubtedly, the target periods determined by domestic law can lead to certain hesitations regarding the application of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR. For example, will the completion of a civil case within the target period foreseen by domestic law definitively eliminate the possibility of asserting a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time? In other words, will the conclusion of the proceedings within the determined target period mean that the right to a trial within a reasonable time has not been violated? Because in some cases, a trial might have been concluded within the target period. However, due to the judicial authority leaving the file inactive, that case might have been unnecessarily prolonged. Or, in cases where the determined target period is exceeded, can it be decided that the right to a trial within a reasonable time has not been violated? So much so that in a situation such as the complexity of the case, it may be impossible to conclude the proceedings within the determined target period. In our opinion, the target periods determined by domestic law do not eliminate the criteria that the ECtHR considers when determining whether a reasonable time has been exceeded. Compliance or non-compliance with these periods does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the right to a trial within a reasonable time has or has not been violated. Nevertheless, it is clear that the completion of a trial within the determined target period will contribute to the formation of a strong presumption that the right to a trial within a reasonable time has not been violated. A book recommendation.