The
courts have a particular obligation to ensure that all parties to a court
proceeding make all the necessary efforts to avoid undue delays of case
examination.
Violations
of reasonable time requirement become widespread in our country. Court proceedings
take months and even years․ Issues requiring court’s assessment are also
delayed causing problems for individuals.
This is
mainly justified by the overloaded court system, which is an unacceptable
justification.
The
Human Rights Defender records that
states
must organize their legal systems in a way that enables the courts to guarantee
the right to obtain a final decision within a reasonable time. In order to comply with this requirement, states
may initiate different mechanisms, such as increasing the number of judges,
setting a time limit for particular cases, etc. However, if the state allows the judicial proceeding to go beyond
the reasonable time clause, without developing the aforementioned mechanisms, then
the state is ultimately responsible for the delay.
Even if we
take into consideration that the procedures affecting reasonable time requirement
depends on the parties, their attitude does not dispense the court from their
obligation to consider the case within a reasonable time. This is required by the Article 6 (1) of the
Convention and therefore by the European Court of Human Rights.
Thus,
from the perspective of rights of court proceeding participant, violations of a
reasonable time clause cannot be justified by overloaded court system.
Everyone
should have effective remedies for restoring that violated right and the state,
in its turn, should create all necessary legal mechanisms for that.
Հայերեն
