In France, where the average time taken to obtain a judgment in a civil case exceeds 12 months, and where some cases drag on for years, the question of the right to a fair trial is a key issue. responsibility of the State and the judiciary for these malfunctions is crucial. These delays are not inevitable. The law recognises the possibility for litigants to obtain compensation for these abnormal delays.
The legal framework of reasonable time
The right to be tried within a reasonable time is fundamental. It is set out in Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Everyone is entitled to a hearing [...] within a reasonable time".
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently clarified this concept in its case law. It assesses reasonableness according to several criteria:
- The complexity of the case
- The applicant's behaviour
- The behaviour of the competent authorities
- What is at stake in the dispute for the person concerned?
Under domestic law, Article L. 141-1 of the Code de l'organisation judiciaire (Code of Judicial Organisation) allows the State to be held liable for denial of justice. Case law considers that excessive delay constitutes a denial of justice.
The Conseil d'Etat has also accepted this responsibility for administrative justice (Magiera ruling, 28 June 2002).
Analysis of timeframes by type of procedure
The thresholds for unreasonableness vary according to the nature of the dispute.
In civil matters
The courts take account of the type of dispute. A divorce is not assessed in the same way as a commercial dispute.
- More than 2 years for a summary procedure
- More than 3 years for proceedings on the merits without expert appraisal
- More than 5 years for a complex procedure
The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Paris High Court) described a three-year time limit for hearings as a denial of justice (TGI Paris, 6 July 1994).
In criminal matters
The requirements are stricter. Individual freedom and the presumption of innocence require particular speed.
Pre-trial detention calls for special vigilance. The European Court ruled that an investigation lasting more than four years in a tax fraud case was unreasonable.
For a free defendant, proceedings lasting more than 5 years without any particular complexity are generally considered unreasonable.
Administrative matters
The Conseil d'État has held the State liable for exceeding the reasonable time limit since the Magiera ruling (2002).
This case law applies to both administrative and specialised courts.
A period of 7 years to judge a tax dispute has been deemed excessive (CE, 18 June 2008).
The compensation procedure
If you are the victim of an unreasonable delay, you have a number of remedies available to you.
For the judicial courts
The action is based on article L. 141-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation. It seeks compensation for damage caused by the defective functioning of the public justice service.
The application is made to the court. The Paris court has particular expertise in this area.
The State is represented by the State Judicial Agent.
It is crucial to pay attention to limitation periodsThe limitation period is four years from the first day of the year following the event giving rise to the claim. The limitation period is four years from the first day of the year following the event giving rise to the claim.
For administrative courts
The prior request for compensation must be addressed to the Minister of Justice.
In the event of refusal or silence for two months, the appeal is lodged with the administrative court.
The limitation period is four years.
Preparing your file
The applicant must prove :
- The existence of an abnormal delay
- Direct and certain damage
- A causal link between the delay and the loss
The essential parts include :
- The complete history of the procedure
- Proof of the steps taken
- Factors in assessing the loss
The case law requires that the applicant has not himself contributed to the extension of the time limits.
Damage assessment and compensation
The courts recognise different types of injury.
Types of damage recognised
Non-material loss is systematically compensated. It includes :
- Waiting anxiety
- Prolonged stress
- Loss of confidence in the justice system
Material loss must be demonstrated precisely. It may include :
- Unnecessary expenses
- Loss of earnings
- Lost opportunities
Loss of chance is assessed separately.
Indicative rates
Compensation amounts vary considerably from case to case.
- Between €1,000 and €3,000 for a period exceeding the reasonable period by 1 to 2 years
- Between €3,000 and €10,000 for a period exceeding 3 to 5 years
- Over €10,000 for the most serious situations
Material loss is assessed on a case-by-case basis according to the evidence provided.
In a case where proceedings dragged on for 14 years, the Court of Cassation upheld compensation of €20,000 (Civ. 1re, 20 February 2008).
Supplementary European action
Recourse to the European Court of Human Rights remains possible once domestic remedies have been exhausted.
The Court may award "just satisfaction" on the basis of Article 41 of the Convention.
This compensation may be in addition to that obtained at national level.
In the Pipelbaum v France judgment (27 October 2004), the Court awarded €21,000 for a civil suit that lasted 10 years.
Recent developments in case law
Case law has strengthened the rights of litigants.
Since the Kudla v. Poland ruling (26 October 2000), the European Court has required states to provide an effective remedy for complaints about excessive length of proceedings.
France has adapted its case law. The Court of Cassation now makes a global and abstract assessment of the length of proceedings (Civ. 1re, 25 March 2009).
The Conseil d'Etat has aligned its case law with that of the Cour de cassation, abandoning the requirement of gross negligence in favour of simple negligence.
For the longest proceedings, the courts now accept a presumption of non-material loss.
An analysis of the statistics shows a significant increase in unreasonable delay claims in recent years.
If your proceedings have been dragging on for years, don't wait. Our firm can assess your chances of obtaining compensation for unreasonable delays in the administration of justice. Contact us for a personalised analysis of your case.
Sources
- Code of Judicial Organisation, article L. 141-1
- European Convention on Human Rights, article 6§1
- Magiera ruling by the Conseil d'État of 28 June 2002
- Case law of the European Court of Human Rights
EN 
FR