CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 47835/20 LESTO SP Z O.O. against Poland (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 May 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 application lodged on 21   October 2020, 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 was represented by Mr T. Zborowski, a lawyer practising in Poznań. The applicant’s 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 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 4   November 2020. In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings complained of are no longer pending. On 4 November 2020 the Łódź Regional Court issued a final judgment. Thus, the proceeding lasted in total three years, six months and twenty-three days at two levels of jurisdiction. There were no delays in the proceedings attributable to the authorities. 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 complaint under Article 6 § 1 is inadmissible, it follows that there is no “arguable claim” of a violation of the applicant’s 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 25 May 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application 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) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of registration Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic decision on complaint under the 2004 Act Domestic award (in Polish zlotys) 47835/20 21/10/2020 LESTO SP Z O.O. 2013 Zborowski Tomasz Poznań 13/04/2017   04/11/2020   3 years, 6 months and 23   days 2 levels of jurisdiction   Łódź Court of Appeal, 07/04/2020, case no. I As 39/20