G.J. v. LUXEMBOURG - 21156/93 [2000] ECHR 510 (26 October 2000)

G.J. v. LUXEMBOURG - 21156/93 [2000] ECHR 510 (26 October 2000)

The Court found that the applicant, as a 90% shareholder and de facto operator of the company, had a direct personal interest and could claim to be a victim. The liquidation proceedings lasted six years, and the authorities failed to provide convincing justification for the delays, particularly after the conclusion of related German proceedings. The 'reasonable time' requirement of Article 6 § 1 was not satisfied.

Citation
[2000] ECHR 510
Parties
Applicant: G. J.; Respondent: Luxembourg
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
26 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
violation found; partial compensation awarded
Legal Topics
Reasonable Time for Proceedings, Liquidation, Bankruptcy, Right to a Fair Trial
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Reasonable Time for Proceedings Liquidation Bankruptcy Right to a Fair Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. J.

Applicant

Luxembourg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the duration of liquidation proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a hearing within a reasonable time)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant could claim to be a victim under Article 6 § 1

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant, as a 90% shareholder and de facto operator of the company, had a direct personal interest and could claim to be a victim. The liquidation proceedings lasted six years, and the authorities failed to provide convincing justification for the delays, particularly after the conclusion of related German proceedings. The 'reasonable time' requirement of Article 6 § 1 was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

violation found; partial compensation awarded

Orders

  • Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection.
  • Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.