CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; 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 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 22407/20 and 7225/23 Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI against Poland (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19   June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , 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 deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Włodzimierz Słowiński, is a Polish national born in 1956. 2.     To date, the applicant has lodged one hundred and forty-three applications with the Court. Application no. 22407/20 Background 3.     On 13 April 2019 the applicant lodged an application with the Court complaining about the excessive length of civil proceedings before the Warsaw-Praga Południe Court and before the Warsaw Regional Court (I C 2851/14 and IV Ca 2458/17), and lack of an effective remedy in domestic law. 4.     That application (no. 21410/19) was communicated to the Government on 11 June 2019 and on 17 December 2020 it was struck out of the Court’s list of cases after the Government had submitted a unilateral declaration proposing to award the applicant 6,240 Polish zloty (PLN) in respect of these complaints. Application no. 22407/20 5.     On 18 May 2020 the applicant lodged a fresh application with the Court in which he complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the same set of civil proceedings as those examined in application no. 21410/19, and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies in that regard. 6.     In the application form, the applicant referred to three other applications he had previously lodged with the Court in 2019 but did not mention application no. 21410/19. 7.     On 16 July 2020 the applicant was appraised of the obligation to inform the Court about any major developments regarding the case. 8.     Application no. 22407/20 was communicated to the Government on 10   November 2022. 9.     On 17 March 2023 the Government stated that the applicant had already received compensation in relation to the same set of the civil proceedings. They, nonetheless, submitted a unilateral declaration. 10.     On 5 April 2023 the applicant rejected the unilateral declaration. He neither disputed the Government’s arguments, nor provided any explanation for the failure to inform the Court about his previous application no.   21410/19. Application no. 7225/23 Background 11.     On 12 May 2018 the applicant lodged another application with the Court, having complained about the length of civil proceedings before the Grodzisk Mazowiecki District Court and the Warsaw Regional Court (case no. IV C 489/15), and the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law. The Court communicated that application (no. 24893/18) to the Government on 11 June 2019 and on 8 April 2021 struck that application out of its list of cases after the Government had submitted a unilateral declaration proposing to award the applicant PLN 5,800 in respect of these complaints. Application no. 7225/23 12.     On 23 January 2023 the applicant lodged a fresh application with the Court in which he complained, among others, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the same set of the civil proceedings as those already examined in application no. 24893/18, and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies in that regard. 13.     In the application form, the applicant referred to three other applications he had previously lodged with the Court, having omitted to mention application no. 24893/18. 14.     The case was communicated to the Government on 15 June 2023.   On 11 October 2023 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration acknowledging the violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 15.     In a reply dated 14 December 2023, the applicant declared that he did not accept the terms of the unilateral declaration. THE LAW Joinder of the applications 16.     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) 17.     The Court finds it appropriate to address, on its own motion, the issue of whether the applicant’s failure to inform it about his previous applications concerning the same sets of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of a right of individual application (see, among many other authorities, Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 30044/10, § 41, 7 July 2020, with further references). 18.     The general principles concerning the rejection of an application on grounds of abuse of the right of individual application have been summarised in Gross v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). In particular, the Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information. 19.     In respect of application no. 22407/20, the Court notes that on 17   December 2020 it awarded the applicant PLN 6,240 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses in relation to the same set of civil proceedings (see application no. 21410/19). The applicant did not inform the Court about having previously lodged an application concerning the same set of the proceedings or about the strike out decision given in the meantime. No convincing explanation for that omission was provided. 20.     As for application no. 7225/23, the Court points out that the applicant in a similar manner failed to inform it about having already lodged another application (no. 24893/18) regarding the same set of the domestic proceedings, and of the award granted on 8 April 2021 on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration. Likewise, the applicant did not explain that omission. 21.     The Court considers that the above conduct displays a repeated pattern of concealing important information which could have impact on the ultimate outcome of the cases under examination. Pursuant to Rule 44C of the Rules of Court “[w]here a party fails to adduce evidence or provide information requested by the Court or to divulge relevant information of its own motion or otherwise fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate”. 22.     Having regard to the fact that the applicant deliberately omitted significant information, and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. 23.     In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 10 July 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. 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 (in Polish zlotys)     22407/20 18/05/2020 Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI 1956   21/03/2014   12/10/2022   8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22 day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, 18/02/2016, case no. IV S 1554/15 Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, 23/01/2019, case no. IV S 415/18 Warsaw Court of Appeal, 30/04/2020, case no. I S 51/20 Warsaw Court of Appeal, 05/10/2021, case no. V S 123/21       7225/23 23/01/2023 28/03/2014   pending   More than 9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Warsaw Court of Appeal, 13/12/2017, case no. V S 10/17, PLN 2,000; Warsaw Court of Appeal, 10/01/2023, case no. V S 419/22