International Law

Duration of Proceedings and Joined Cases C-120/06 P & C-121/06 P

By Bartolus

A while ago we noted the Court of Justice's judgment in Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission.

There's an interesting little twist at the end of that judgment. The parties had complained of the excessively long duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and sought compensation à la Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission. In that case, the Court of Justice stated that the proceedings in the Court of First Instance had lasted too long and reduced the fine the Commission had imposed on Baustahlgewebe for an antitrust infringement in order to compensate for the loss and damage caused by that excessively long legal procedure.

The Court of Justice dismissed the claim for compensation because of the duration of the proceedings in this case.

First, the Court distinguished the present case from Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission. It recalled that in Case C-185/95 P it had held that the Court of First Instance had taken excessively long to take its decision and for reasons of economy of procedure and in order to ensure an immediate and effective remedy regarding a procedural irregularity of that kind, that in the circumstances the requisite reasonable satisfaction could be granted by setting aside and varying, solely in relation to determination of the amount of the fine, the judgment of the Court of First Instance. Such a course of action was not possible in the present case because it was a claim in damages and the Court of First Instance had ultimately rejected it. Logically, setting aside such a judgment cannot lead to the grant of reasonable satisfaction for the excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance by variation of the judgment under appeal, since in such proceedings the Court of First Instance is not in any event, any more than the Court of Justice on appeal, called upon to order the applicants to pay a sum from which that reasonable satisfaction could, where appropriate, be subtracted.

Second, the Court of Justice held that the duration of the proceedings in this case not not in fact excessively long. It stated that the reasonableness of a period must be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the applicant and of the competent authorities (see, Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission, paragraph 29, and Joined Cases C?238/99 P, C?244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C?252/99 P and C-254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission, paragraph 210). It found that in this case there had been a number of procedural incidents that explained the duration of the proceedings: the joinder, in the light of the connection between them, of six cases brought in a number of different languages, their reassignment, first to a chamber in extended composition, then to a new Judge-Rapporteur following the departure of the Judge-Rapporteur initially designated and, finally, to the Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance, and this final reassignment being itself accompanied by the reopening of the oral procedure.

Full post as published by EU Law Blog on October 01, 2008 (boomark / email).