CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s319372BC { width:122.43pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 10982/17 Piotr Stanisław CHLEBNY against Poland (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6   October   2022 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Lorraine Schembri Orland , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20   January 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the length of the proceedings which ended on 6   September 2016. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant went into hiding and the proceedings were thus stayed for over two years. The applicant was arrested on 18 December 2014 and on 17 November 2015 the first-instance judgment was issued. The appeal against it was dismissed on 6 September 2016. There were no periods of inactivity for which the domestic courts should be held responsible. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, since the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 are inadmissible, it follows that he has no “arguable claim” of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded. In view of the above, the Court finds that the application is inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Erik Wennerström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 and   Article   13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic decision on complaint under the 2004 Act Domestic award 10982/17 20/01/2017 Piotr Stanisław CHLEBNY 1967 19/06/2011   06/09/2016   5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 19 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Rzeszow Court of Appeal 13/10/2016 II S 10/16