ANDERSON V UNITED KINGOM FEBRUARY 2010 – ECHR FIND THAT UK COURTS IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 6(1) OF THE CONVENTION.
This particular judgment has been quoted by County Court Judges recently in the context of No COR reviews. We anticipate that reference to this Judgment will become more widespread as the Courts consider that they could be held liable for failing to ensure that a case is dealt with within a “reasonable time” as required under Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.
In this case the Applicant owned a flat in a tenement building in Edinburgh. As a result of breaches of statutory notices issued by the City Council against the proprietors of the building the City Council carried out works to the building. In the same year a fire occurred to the building causing damage to the Plaintiff’s property and the flat below which was owned by a commercial property company. The company carried out repair works whilst the Plaintiff was living elsewhere. The Applicant claimed that both set of repair works constituted trespass to his property, and the repairs where inadequate. The council issued proceedings for a contribution of the repair works, the applicant counterclaimed. In November 1994 the council’s claim was upheld and the applicant’s counterclaim rejected and it was held that the case did not meet the criterion for referral to the Court of Session. In May 1995 the applicants appeal to the sheriff principal was rejected. In 1997 the applicant obtained a summons to bring proceedings against the commercial property company and the council in the Court of Session alleging that the Statutory notices initially issued by the Council where invalid. The proceedings ended in December 2003.
The Applicant complained to the ECHR that the length of the proceedings before the Court of Session was incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Applicant sought damages for non-pecuniary loss pursuant to Article 41 of the Convention.
The European Court held that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings had to be assessed in consideration of: the complexity of the case; the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the Applicant?
This case was not particularly complex and the implications for the Applicant of the decision was not of exceptional importance. Therefore the courts concentrated on the second criterion. The Court held that the applicant bore some responsibility for the delay in the initial stages of proceedings however the court held that this did not absolve the domestic court’s obligation to take an active role in the management of proceedings. The state remained responsible for the efficiency of its system and to ensure a compliance with Article 6(1) – whether by automatic time limits or directions. If a state allowed proceedings to continue beyond “reasonable time” prescribed by Article 6 without doing anything to advance them, it would be responsible for the resultant delay. In the present circumstances the proceedings had not been pursued with the diligence required by Article 6(1). The Applicants “civil rights and obligations” had not been determined within a “reasonable time” and therefore the state had violated Article 6 of the Convention. The Applicant was awarded the sum of €1,500.00 damages.