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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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. 83229/17 Renata MUCHA against Poland and 7 other applications (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 applications lodged on various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants’ details are set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the length of the proceedings concerning inheritance matters, that had lasted, in respect of the applicants, between 20 December 2011 and 20   October 2016, are inadmissible. The Court observes that the applicants were required to complain to a domestic court under the 2004 Act about a breach of the right to have a case examined in judicial proceedings without undue delay (see   Charzyński v.   Poland   (dec.), no.   15212/03, §§   39-42, 1 March 2005). The applicants lodged such a complaint on 29 May 2017, after the proceedings in their cases had ended. The complaint was therefore rejected on 12 June 2017 by the Wroclaw Court of Appeal as lodged not in accordance with the formal requirements and was thus never examined on the merits. Accordingly, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies. In view of the above, the complaints under Article   13 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded. The Court finds that the applications are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides   to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Erik Wennerström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 and   Article   13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 83229/17 Mucha v. Poland 06/12/2017 Renata MUCHA 1966 Jastrzebie Zdroj Polish 2. 83237/17 Maciejczyk v. Poland 06/12/2017 Paweł MACIEJCZYK 1941 Rybnik Polish 3. 83314/17 Maciejczyk v. Poland 07/12/2017 Jan MACIEJCZYK 1938 Pstrazna Polish 4. 83462/17 Wawrzyniak v. Poland 03/12/2017 Mirosława WAWRZYNIAK 1966 Jastrzębie Zdrój Polish 5. 83625/17 Widera v. Poland 06/12/2017 Jadwiga WIDERA 1951 Rybnik Polish 6. 1126/18 Krawieczek v. Poland 06/12/2017 Grzegorz KRAWIECZEK 1971 Rybnik Polish 7. 2145/18 Gardian v. Poland 08/12/2017 Hanna Urszula GARDIAN 1971 Gorzyce Polish 8. 6707/18 Chachaj-Maciejczyk v. Poland 17/12/2017 Róża CHACHAJ-MACIEJCZYK 1946 Gaszowice Polish