CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 mars 2023

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sA2CEA1D7 { width:125.74pt; 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 } .sC4564500 { height:34.8pt } .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 } .s76DF4627 { height:60.4pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D7089D { height:82.8pt } .s8FC7D88E { height:66.75pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 57723/19 Ewa KOLASA against Poland and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23   Mars   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the 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 applicant, the comments submitted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights ( Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka ) and the Federation of Associations of Uniformed Services of the Republic of Poland ( Federacja Stowarzyszeń Służb Mundurowych RP ), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, limitation of their access to court and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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) In the present applications, 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 impugned proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings complained of started when the applicants lodged their appeals against the decisions decreasing their pensions. The proceedings before the courts were subsequently stayed pending the outcome of the relevant proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see Bieliński v. Poland , no. 48762/19, § 10, 21 July 2022). Even though the proceedings before the Constitutional Court have not yet been terminated, the domestic courts resumed the proceedings in the applicants’ cases and issued judgments on the merits. Following the applicants’ appeals, the judgments of the second instance courts were issued without undue delays. Overall, the length of proceedings did not exceed three years and ten months at two court instances in any of these cases (compare and contrast, Bieliński, cited above, § 34). In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaints under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention related to the length of the proceedings are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, since the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the court proceedings are inadmissible, it follows that they have no “arguable claim” of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention claiming that the length of proceedings affected their right of access to court. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §   3   of the Convention (see Bieliński, cited above, §§   71-72). It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 13 April 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Alena Poláčková   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. Date of introduction   Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic decision on complaint under the 2004 Act     57723/19 25/10/2019 Ewa KOLASA 1955 Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 19/08/2017   19/01/2021   3 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 1   day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Warsaw Court of Appeal, 16/05/2019, case no. III S 35/19     7548/20 30/01/2020 Anna SMAGAŁA-LEDWAROWSKA 1959 Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 26/09/2017   24/06/2021   3 year(s) and 9   month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Warsaw Court of Appeal, 14/05/2019, case no. III S 37/19     7978/20 30/01/2020 Andrzej KOWESZKO 1955 Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 28/07/2017   21/05/2021   3 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 24   day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Warsaw Court of Appeal, 06/11/2019, case no. III AUz 830/19