SECOND SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF VIEIRA GOMES BEZERRA v. PORTUGAL
 
(Application no. 60786/10)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
28 January 2014
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vieira Gomes Bezerra v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Dragoljub Popović, President,
 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
 Helen Keller, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 January 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 60786/10) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Portuguese national, Ms Tomásia Vieira Gomes Bezerra (“the applicant”), on 4 October 2010. 2. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms. M. F. Graça de Carvalho, Deputy-Attorney General. 3. On 17 October 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in Silves (Portugal) and lives in Bonn (Germany). 5. On 28 February 2007 the applicant started civil proceedings against two companies before the Court of Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal). The proceedings concerned the occupation of a land which the applicant claimed to be her own (domestic proceedings no. 1908/07.8TBVNG). 6. The defendants contested the proceedings and the court ordered that the size of the land be analysed by an expertise. These procedural steps ended on 18 December 2007. 7. In the first trimester of 2008 an attempt of conciliation of the parties took place. 8. On 18 July 2008 the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings as the property was not registered in the name of the applicant, before the Land Registry Office (Conservatória do Registo Predial). 9. On 20 January 2010 the court ordered the interruption of the proceedings. 10. On 18 July 2010 the applicant joined an additional supporting document to the proceedings, informing the court of the registration of the land. The judge ordered the proceedings to be resumed. 11. According to the last information received by the Court on 3 May 2013, the proceedings are still pending. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”
13. The Government contested that argument claiming that the proceedings were delayed due to the applicant’s omission to register the disputed land in her name. 14. The period to be taken into consideration began on 28 February 2007 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted so far 6 years and 10 months for one level of jurisdiction. A. Admissibility
15. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
16. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 17. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Though the applicant can be held responsible for some delays, the overall length of proceedings is excessive. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 18. II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
19. Lastly, the applicant complained about a violation of her right to property as protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 20. The Court notes that this complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the proceedings are still pending, pursuant to Article 35 §§1 and 4 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation