While awaiting a court decision, time can seem to stretch indefinitely. This feeling echoes La Bruyere’s famous observation: « The duty of judges is to render justice; their profession, to delay it. » Yet the quality of justice is measured not only by the correctness of its decisions, but also by its capacity to deliver them within an acceptable timeframe.

The European and national requirement

The right to be tried within a reasonable time constitutes one of the fundamental guarantees of the French judicial system. This requirement, enshrined at both European and national level, aims to prevent litigants from remaining in legal uncertainty for too long.

Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states that « everyone is entitled to […] a hearing within a reasonable time. » This principle has been incorporated into French domestic law, notably in Article L. 111-3 of the Code of Judicial Organisation (Code de l’organisation judiciaire), which provides that « judicial decisions shall be rendered within a reasonable time.« 

The concept of « reasonable time »: a case-by-case assessment

The concept of « reasonable time » (« delai raisonnable ») is deliberately flexible and indeterminate. It does not correspond to a fixed duration but is assessed according to the circumstances specific to each case.

Complexity of the case

The first criterion is the complexity of the case. Proceedings involving numerous parties, requiring technical expert assessments, or raising novel legal questions naturally justify a longer timeframe.

In a judgment of 15 July 1982, the European Court of Human Rights held that a period of 7 years was not unreasonable for a particularly complex commercial case involving several companies and international financial transactions (ECtHR, 15 July 1982, Eckle v. Germany).

Conduct of the parties

The parties’ conduct can extend delays. A litigant who multiplies procedural incidents or delays in producing submissions cannot complain of excessive duration that they themselves have caused.

Article 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procedure civile) recalls this responsibility by providing that « it is for the parties to carry out the procedural steps in the required forms and within the required time limits. » The judge may sanction party inaction through various measures, including striking the case from the list (« radiation ») or rejecting late evidence (Articles 470 and 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Conduct of the judicial authorities

The judge’s vigilance regarding the duration of proceedings constitutes a central element of assessment. Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly entrusts the judge with the mission of ensuring « the proper conduct of the proceedings » and gives the judge « the power to set time limits and order necessary measures.« 

This criterion extends to the very organisation of the judicial system. The European Court considers that States must organise their judicial systems so as to enable courts to comply with the reasonable time requirement. Chronic court overload or lack of resources do not constitute acceptable justifications.

What is at stake for the individual

Certain cases require particular speed due to their nature or consequences for the parties. This includes disputes concerning personal status, child custody, employment tribunal (« prud’hommes ») proceedings, or cases involving vulnerable persons.

European case law thus accepts that « exceptional diligence » is required in cases concerning parental authority (ECtHR, 23 September 1994, Hokkanen v. Finland).

Accounting for elapsed time

Assessing reasonable time requires considering the entirety of the proceedings, from the initial submission to the first court through to the effective enforcement of the decision.

Article 2242 of the Civil Code (Code civil) specifies that the interruption of limitation periods « continues until the proceedings are terminated. » Consistent European case law considers that the time period does not end with the pronouncement of the judgment but includes the enforcement phase, which constitutes « the necessary continuation of the trial » (ECtHR, 19 March 1997, Hornsby v. Greece).

Mandatory preliminary phases (administrative appeals, conciliation attempts) are also taken into account in calculating the period. This holistic approach prevents the artificial fragmentation of proceedings to disguise their total duration.

Remedies for breach of the reasonable time requirement

Unlike other procedural irregularities, exceeding the reasonable time does not result in the annulment of the proceedings. The primary remedy lies in financial compensation for the moral harm suffered by the litigant.

At the European level, Article 41 of the ECHR provides for « just satisfaction » to repair the damage caused by this violation. In French domestic law, an action in State liability for the defective functioning of the public service of justice constitutes the appropriate remedy.

This action, governed by Articles L. 141-1 et seq. of the Code of Judicial Organisation, allows the State’s liability to be engaged in cases of « denial of justice » (« deni de justice ») or « serious fault » (« faute lourde »). Case law has progressively assimilated the exceeding of reasonable time to a denial of justice, facilitating compensation for litigants.

The amount of compensation varies according to the excessive duration of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the harm actually suffered. In certain cases, the mere recognition of the violation may constitute sufficient reparation.

In criminal matters, specific mechanisms exist: a person placed in pre-trial detention (« detention provisoire ») must be released if their detention exceeds a reasonable duration. Article 144-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code de procedure penale) provides that « pre-trial detention may not exceed a reasonable duration.« 

Reasonable time: a delicate balance

The reasonable time requirement reflects the permanent tension between speed and quality of justice. The judge must have the time necessary to examine the case while avoiding unjustified delays.

To achieve this balance, various solutions have been implemented: development of expedited procedures (« procedures accelerees »), strengthening of the judge’s case management powers, and promotion of alternative dispute resolution methods.

The constant increase in caseloads and budgetary constraints make this challenge more complex. Yet justice delivered belatedly risks losing its effectiveness and legitimacy in the eyes of litigants.

Compliance with the reasonable time requirement is not merely a technical demand. It goes to the very essence of justice. For certain disputes, the early involvement of a lawyer can help speed up the procedure by avoiding errors and unnecessary delays. Our firm remains available to assist you and ensure that your procedural rights are respected.

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT