While awaiting a court decision, time can seem to stretch on indefinitely. This feeling is echoed in La Bruyère's famous quote: " The duty of judges is to dispense justice, their job is to defer it ". Yet the quality of justice is measured not only by the fairness of its decisions, but also by its ability to deliver them within an acceptable timeframe.
European and national requirements
The right to be tried within a reasonable time is one of the fundamental guarantees of our judicial system. This requirement, which is enshrined at both European and national level, is designed to prevent litigants from remaining too long in legal uncertainty.
Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states that ". everyone is entitled to have his case heard [...] within a reasonable time ". This principle has been incorporated into our domestic law, in particular in Article L. 111-3 of the Code of Judicial Organisation, which states that ". court decisions are handed down within a reasonable timeframe ".
The concept of reasonable time: a case-by-case assessment
The concept of "reasonable time" is deliberately flexible and open-ended. It does not correspond to a fixed duration, but is assessed according to the circumstances of each case.
Complexity of the case
The first criterion is the complexity of the case. Proceedings involving numerous parties, requiring technical expertise or raising new legal issues naturally justify a longer timeframe.
In a judgment of 15 July 1982, the European Court of Human Rights recognised that a period of 7 years was not unreasonable for a particularly complex commercial case involving several companies and international financial transactions (ECHR, 15 July 1982, Eckle v Germany).
Behaviour of the parties
The behaviour of the parties may lengthen the time limits. A litigant who multiplies the number of procedural incidents or is late in producing his written submissions cannot complain of excessive time that he himself has caused.
Article 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reiterates this responsibility, stating that it is "the duty of the parties to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their interests are protected". it is up to the parties to carry out the procedural steps in the required form and within the required time limits ". The court may penalise the parties' failure to act by various measures, including striking the case out of the register or rejecting late pleadings (articles 470 and 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Behaviour of the judicial authorities
The judge's vigilance with regard to the duration of the proceedings is a central element of assessment. Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly entrusts the judge with the task of ensuring that "the duration of the proceedings is respected. the smooth running of the proceedings "and gives him the power to set time limits and order the necessary measures ".
This criterion extends to the very organisation of the judicial system. The European Court considers that States must organise their judicial system in such a way as to enable the courts to comply with the reasonable time requirement. Chronic overloading of the courts or a lack of resources are not acceptable justifications.
What is at stake for the person concerned?
Some cases require particular speed because of their nature or their consequences for the parties. These include disputes concerning personal status, child custody, industrial tribunal proceedings and disputes involving vulnerable persons.
European case law thus accepts that a " exceptional diligence "(ECHR, 23 September 1994, Hokkanen v Finland).
Taking account of elapsed time
In order to assess whether a case has been brought within a reasonable time, the entire procedure must be taken into account, from the time the case is first brought before the court until the decision is actually enforced.
Article 2242 of the Civil Code specifies that this interruptive effect ". continues until the proceedings are terminated ". The European Court of Justice has consistently held that the time limit does not end with the delivery of the judgment, but includes the enforcement phase, which constitutes "the period during which the judgment may be enforced". the inevitable continuation of the trial "(ECHR, 19 March 1997, Hornsby v Greece).
The compulsory preliminary phases (appeals, conciliation attempts) are also taken into account when calculating the time limit. This overall view prevents the artificial fragmentation of the procedure to disguise its total duration.
Penalties 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 main penalty is financial compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the litigant.
At European level, Article 41 of the ECHR provides for a " just satisfaction "In domestic law, an action for damages against the State for defective operation of the public judicial service is the appropriate remedy. Under domestic law, an action for damages against the State for defective operation of the public service of justice is the appropriate remedy.
This action, governed by articles L. 141-1 et seq. of the French Code of Judicial Organisation, makes it possible to hold the State liable in the event of "a breach of the law". denial of justice "or gross fault ". Case law has gradually equated exceeding the reasonable time limit with a denial of justice, making it easier for litigants to claim compensation.
The amount of compensation varies according to the excessive length of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties and the damage actually suffered. In some cases, simply acknowledging the violation may be sufficient compensation.
In the criminal field, specific mechanisms exist: a person remanded in custody must be released if the period of detention exceeds a reasonable length of time. Article 144-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that " pre-trial detention may not exceed a reasonable length of time ".
Reasonable time: a delicate balance
The reasonable time requirement is a reminder of the constant tension between speed and quality of justice. The judge must have the necessary time to examine the case while avoiding unjustified delays.
To ensure this balance, various solutions have been implemented These include the development of fast-track procedures, the strengthening of the judge's powers in the conduct of proceedings, and the promotion of alternative dispute resolution methods.
The constant increase in litigation and budgetary constraints make this challenge more complex. However, justice delivered late risks losing its effectiveness and legitimacy in the eyes of litigants.
Respect for a reasonable time is not just a technical requirement. It goes to the very essence of justice. For some disputes, the prompt intervention of a lawyer can help speed up proceedings by avoiding errors and unnecessary delays. Our firm is available to supporting you and ensuring that your procedural rights are respected.
Sources
- European Convention on Human Rights, article 6§1
- Code of Judicial Organisation, articles L. 111-3 and L. 141-1
- Code of Civil Procedure, articles 2, 3, 135, 470
- Civil Code, article 2242
- Code of Criminal Procedure, article 144-1
- ECHR, 15 July 1982, Eckle v Germany
- ECHR, 23 September 1994, Hokkanen v Finland
- ECHR, 19 March 1997, Hornsby v Greece
- Répertoire de procédure civile - Délai, Yves Strickler, February 2019, Dalloz
EN 
FR