CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 2024

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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. 46378/22 Marcin ŻURKOWSKI against Poland (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18   September 2022, 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 D. Cupiał, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 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 applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings which ended on 27   October 2022 is inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings complained of are no longer pending. On 27 October 2022 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court issued the final judgment. Thus, the proceeding lasted in total three years, eleven months and thirteen 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, the complaint under Article 13 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 11 April 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   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   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) 46378/22 18/09/2022 Marcin ŻURKOWSKI 1985 Cupiał Dawid Warsaw 15/11/2018   27/10/2022   3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 13 day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, 23/11/2020, case no. VI S 114/20   Warsaw Court of Appeal, 29/06/2022, case no. II S 16/22