Time, time, time, look what’s become of me

2 May 2012 by

In law, time can be everything. Every lawyer will have experienced waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat at the realisation that a time limit has been missed. Courts often have the discretion to extend litigation time limits, such as under rule 3.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but simple mistakes by lawyers rarely generate sympathy from judges. Even scarier, judges sometimes do not even have the power to extend time at all, however unfair the circumstances. The idea is to encourage certainty and predictability in the legal system.

The lesson of principle is that lawyers should never take risks on time limits. The practical reality is that this is a very easy to say  in retrospect. And so we reach the difficult case of Abu Qatada, in which 5 European Court of Human Rights judges are to decide next Wednesday 9 May whether an appeal by the preacher  will be heard in full by the court’s Grand Chamber. Whoever you think was right, Abu Qatada’s lawyers or Home Secretary Theresa May, this controversy has demonstrated that rules designed to provide certainty can have exactly the opposite effect in practice.

There are two issues before the judges. First, whether Abu Qatada appealed in time. The ruling in his case was handed down on 17 January 2012. Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that he could only request referral to the Grand Chamber “Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber”. Abu Qatada attempted to appeal on the evening of 17 April 2012. The Home Office are apparently certain this was too late, as time ran out, they argue, on the evening of the 16th.

The second issue before the judges is whether the appeal raises issues which are important enough to be looked at again by the Grand Chamber.

Blogger Carl Gardner has already written about the wider issues in this case in detail here, here and here. I cannot add greatly his excellent analysis, except to say three  things.

First, I think the Home Office may have got the time limit right. At the very least, there is no clear answer. I have spoken to many lawyers about this issue and the general consensus seems to be that Abu Qatada’s lawyers were probably right. I think this may be due to the influence of Carl Gardner’s posts, because there really is no clear answer either on the European Court of Human Rights website, the previous case law or in the otherwise helpful (but not on this point) Grand Chamber “General Practice” document.

I am not even sure that the Court’s Registry know what the answer is. The initial reaction to the controversy was that “Court officials” thought the appeal was in time. It also seems, bizarrely, that the issue has simply never come up. But in any event, what is clear is that the decision on admissibility is ultimately for the panel of Judges who are meeting next week, not for the Registry.

Why the doubt? I have explained my reasoning in my comment under Carl’s original post. In summary, some of the Court’s case law in relation to a different time limit – the 6-month limit to bring a claim at the Court following the exhaustion of domestic remedies – clearly shows that when the clock starts running on the 17th of a month, it ends on the 16th of a month. See, for example, Otto v. Germany (“The six-month period… therefore started to run on 28 November 2005 and expired on 27 May 2006.“) But the court has not always been consistent on this point: see for example Fleri Soler v Malta, a case referred to by a commenter to Carl’s post, in which the Court held:

In the present case the final domestic decision was given on 18 March 2005. It follows that the six-month period …started to run on the following day, namely 19 March 2005. Therefore, even if it had been lodged on 19 September 2005, the present application would have been submitted on the last day of the said period.

In Grand Chamber applications – at least according to p.14 of the Court’s own General Practice document –  the clock starts running “on the date of the delivery of the judgment“, that is the 17th January. So by my reckoning, it is quite possible, following the reasoning in Otto, that the period ended on 16th April. Of course, what is good for the goose (the 6-month time limit) is not necessarily good for the gander (the 3-month time limit). But the issue is clearly arguable, and I would be surprised if the judges emerge with a clear answer.

In fact, the reason there is no clear answer arises from my second point, which is that we may never know how the judges reason on this issue. That is because there is no obligation on the panel of judges to say why they reached their decision. So the court may refuse to hear the appeal, but not say whether this is because the application was out of time, or because it did not raise a substantive issue which was appropriate to be heard by the Grand Chamber.

Equally, the Court may allow the case to be heard but not explain the legal basis for deciding the appeal was within the time limit. This will be no good for anyone, as it will let the Home Office, correctly, accuse the Court of ducking the issue.

The problem with this approach is that because there is no obligation to provide reasoned decisions, there are no reasoned decisions. Which means that there is no case-law to refer back to in relation to the issue of time limits. So whilst the Prime Minister stated on the Today Programme that “all the case law pointed in that direction“, I would be very interested to know what cases he was referring to. Because on this precise point, there doesn’t appear to be any case law at all.  This makes things very difficult for claimants and respondent states, as time limits – you may remember – are meant to be about certainty.

My final point is about the Court’s discretion. It has been floated that the Court may have discretion, even if the time limit was not complied with, to “extend” time. I think this is probably wrong, at least for the 6-month rule, where the Court has ruled that no extension of time is available as States did not expressly provide for one in the Convention itself, where the time limits arise from. See this case at para 38 and the Court’s Guide to Admissability, p.22:

69. It is not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule (for example in the absence of observations from a government on that question) (Belaousof and Others v. Greece*, § 38).

Leaving aside the legal niceties, it seems to have become the accepted wisdom that however sure the Home Office was about time limits, it should still have waited for a few days before rushing to deport Abu Qatada. This would, goes the argument, have limited some of the embarrassment although in reality it would have made little difference to the timetable for removal.

Whatever the outcome of this case, the Court needs urgently to revise its otherwise useful guidance documents for litigants to explain exactly when time limits run out. And whichever judges decide Abu Qatada’s fate next week, in the interests of justice and transparency, this time they should raise their heads over the parapet and explain how they have reached their decision.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. JC says:

    Tuesday 9 May? Is Ms May doing your diarisation?

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Haha I deserved that. Clearly a Freudian slip – amended, thanks

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Simon and Garfunkel – A Hazy Shade of Winter !


    I hope that the judges speak clearly on this important point. A “Sound of Silence” other that a mere decision would not be good. If the decision goes against the UK, the British government will be very “hard to please.”

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      ObiterJ, you win the prize! And your pun is the one I was looking for but failed to find. Top drawer.

      1. ObiterJ says:

        Thank you – many a lawyer tries to be A Bridge Over Troubled Waters !!! Think I’ll leave it there.

  3. Stephen says:

    I am slightly surprised that a convention for counting time has not been unambiguously established.

    The Fleri Solar v Malta case referred to above is clearly anomalous in my view. I count more than 182.5 days (ie 6 months) between 19 March and 19 Sept. Even if the deadline had been held as 18 Sept this would still exceed 182.5 days.

    It seems the 3 or 6 month period varies according to the time of the year and the number of days in each month. So a 6 month deadline starting in March may well be longer than 6 months commencing in another month! Surely, consistency is needed?. I suggest time should be counted in days, if not hours. The month is clearly an ambiguous unit of measure.

    I am just glad beer is not measured in similarly ambiguous units!

  4. Stephen says:

    I don’t really understand why there is a problem here. There are 91.25 days in a quarter. Counting 91 days from 17 Jan lands the counter on 17 April, hence this date should be the deadline.

    Having settled the date, I think the time of day at which the appeal was lodged should be the critical factor. The deadline time of day should be set at judgement time plus 6 hours. So if the judgement was announced at 1400 hours then the deadline should expire at 2000 hours on 17 April.

    Without knowing the judgement time, or the time the appeal was lodged, it is not possible to determine whether the appeal was in time under this criterion.

    So, the solution to the riddle is that both camps may be simultaneously correct and incorrect i.e.,, the deadline date is 17 April but the appeal is nevertheless out of time.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: