CÂT TIMP ESTE PREA MULT? TERMENUL REZONABIL CA PREZUMŢIE RELATIVĂ ÎN JURISPRUDENŢA CEDO
HOW LONG IS TOO LONG? THE REASONABLE TIME AS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IN THE ECHR CASE LAW

Summary/Abstract: Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees everyone the right to have their case heard “within a reasonable time”. Unlike other procedural safeguards, the Convention provision does not set a maximum duration, leaving it to the Strasbourg Court to assess reasonableness in concreto, on a case by case basis . The question that therefore arises is simple and, at the same time, essential for Romanian criminal practice: how long is too long? The answer cannot be a mathematical figure, but a rule of evidence. Case law. The ECHR has evolved from a purely factual analysis towards establishing a rebuttable presumption: up to a certain temporal threshold, the length of the proceedings is presumed to be reasonable, and once this threshold is exceeded, the burden of proof is reversed. At that point, it is no longer sufficient for the applicant to invoke the mere passage of time. It is then for the State to demonstrate, with data and documents, the diligence of the judicial authorities and the absence of passivity on the part of the other participants. Starting from the Sâmbotin v. Romania , Barbu Angelescu v. Romania cases, in conjunction with the remedy provided for in Articles 488^1 to 488^14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this paper aims to define this threshold and to verify whether, in domestic practice, the Romanian State succeeds in rebutting the presumption of unreasonableness. Thus, the five year threshold is interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of obvious, exceptional complexity proven by the State, the presumption of reasonableness is rebutted, and Romania is found in violation not as regards the merits of the case, but for the time lost.

• Details
• Contents