CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 5 décembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s35B47D62 { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF1E2154C { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s60AA8033 { font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA061164A { color:#008000 } .sA193331F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2BE0B0A7 { height:19.15pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s3C47E78A { height:19.1pt } .s39976575 { height:37.25pt } .sE8AF066E { height:5.65pt } .s87F54B8E { height:5.6pt } .s9FFE14A3 { color:#003300 } .sC65EB21A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .s59A9E99 { width:18.91pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s585CF1D3 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffff99 } .sC6C59EC9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffff99 } .s3E792EF9 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffff99 } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .s3F2D18E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .s40216698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s57F2F125 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ccffff } .s30619F3B { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ccffff } .s31E16C83 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ccffff } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)244 71 affaires contre Allemagne Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Voir Annexe pour la liste d’affaires)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 5 décembre 2013, lors de la 1186e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu les arrêts définitifs transmis par la Cour au Comité dans ces affaires et les violations constatées   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -                  de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -                  de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables   ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable lorsqu’octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)1234 [1] )   ;   Relevant avec satisfaction que, dans le délai fixé par la Cour dans son arrêt pilote rendu dans l’affaire Rumpf, les autorités allemandes ont introduit dans leur système juridique un recours interne concernant la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires afin de se conformer aux exigences de la Convention   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Annexe   Requête Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 46344/06 RUMPF 02/09/2010 02/12/2010 54215/08 ABDUVALIEVA 26/11/2009 26/02/2010 44036/02 ADAM 04/12/2008 04/03/2009 39444/08 AFFLERBACH 24/06/2010   10732/05 BÄHNK 09/10/2008 09/01/2009 1479/08 BALLHAUSEN 23/04/2009 23/07/2009 8453/04 BAYER 16/07/2009 16/10/2009 21965/09 BELLUT 21/07/2011   7634/05 BOZLAR 05/03/2009 05/06/2009 1126/05 D.E. 16/07/2009 06/11/2009 17878/04 DEIWICK 11/06/2009 11/09/2009 7369/04 DEIWICK 26/03/2009 26/06/2009 40014/05 DÖRING 08/07/2010 08/10/2010 39778/07+ DUDEK 16/12/2010   2693/07 EWALD 21/10/2010   1679/03 GLÜSEN 10/01/2008 10/04/2008 66491/01 GRÄSSER 05/10/2006 26/03/2007 43155/08 GRUMANN 21/10/2010   57249/00 HERBOLZHEIMER 31/07/03 31/10/03 20027/02 HERBST 11/01/2007 11/04/2007 397/07+ HOFFER ET ANNEN 13/01/2011 20/06/2011 1182/05 HUB 09/04/2009 09/07/2009 39641/08 JAHNKE 03/03/2011   10053/08 JESSE 22/12/2009   11811/10 KEMPE 30/06/2011   37820/06 KINDEREIT 08/10/2009 08/01/2010 19124/02 KIRSTEN 15/02/2007 09/07/2007 21061/06 KRESSIN 22/12/2009   17384/06 KUCHEJDA 24/06/2010   21980/06+ KUHLEN-RASANDJANI (I-III) 20/01/2011 20/04/2011 41599/09 KUPPINGER 21/04/2011   53550/09 KURCZVEIL 20/10/2011   14635/03 LAUDON 26/04/2007 24/09/2007 58911/00 LEELA FÖRDERKREIS E.V. ET AUTRES 06/11/2008 06/02/2009 41629/07 MIANOWICZ 13/10/2011   37111/04 MIANOWICZ 29/09/2011   37264/06 MIANOWICZ 13/10/2011   3810/06 MIANOWICZ 13/10/2011   3863/06 MIANOWICZ 13/10/2011   32637/08 MIANOWICZ 13/10/2011   71972/01 MIANOWICZ n o 2 11/06/2009 01/03/2010 36395/07 MÜLLER 25/02/2010 25/05/2010 39741/02 NANNING 12/07/2007 12/10/2007 12852/08 NIEDZWIECKI n o 2 01/04/2010   32513/08 NIESEN 21/10/2010   27250/02 NOLD 29/06/2006 11/12/2006 10597/03 OMMER n o 1 13/11/2008 13/02/2009 26073/03 OMMER n o 2 13/11/2008 13/02/2009 28348/09 OTTO 22/09/2011   25756/09 PERSCHKE 24/06/2010   901/05 PETERMAN 25/03/2010   34236/06 POPOVIC 13/01/2011 13/04/2011 485/09 REINHARD 25/03/2010 31/05/2010 32338/07 RITTER-COULAIS 30/03/2010   21423/07 SCHÄDLICH 24/06/2010   2651/07 SCHLIEDERER 21/10/2010   46682/07 SINKOVEC 30/03/2010   76680/01 SKUGOR 10/05/2007 24/09/2007 47757/06 SOPP 08/10/2009 08/01/2010 854/07 SPATH 29/09/2011 08/03/2012 38033/02 STORK 13/07/2006 13/10/2006 75529/01 SÜRMELI 08/06/2006 Grande Chambre 32936/09 TRÄXLER 21/10/2010   64387/01 UHL 10/02/2005 10/05/2005 54188/07 VOLKMER 30/03/2010   40009/04 VON KOESTER n o 1 07/01/2010 22/11/2010 17019/08 VON KOESTER 22/09/2011   38187/08 WAGNER 18/11/2010   30175/07 WETJEN 25/03/2010   974/07 WIENHOLTZ 21/12/2010 21/03/2011 42402/05+ WILDGRUBER 21/01/2010 21/04/2010     Report on the execution of the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 2 September 2010 in the case of R. v. Germany (No. 46344/06) and 70 other cases concerning excessive length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect (anglais uniquement)   1. Introduction   The cases concern the lack of an effective remedy against the length of judicial proceedings before the civil courts, the labour courts, the administrative courts, social courts and criminal courts, as well as of criminal investigation proceedings.   A list of all cases concerned is enclosed in Annex 1.   The European Court of Human Rights established in its judgments that the length of the proceedings constituted a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. Because the applicants did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention which could have expedited the proceedings or provided adequate redress for delays that had already occurred, the Court found in several cases that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.   The Court had found in its judgment of 8 June 2006 handed down in the case No.   75529/01 that the possibilities of legal protection in Germany in the event of excessive length of proceedings did not meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   In the case of R. v. Germany (No. 46344/06), the Court rendered a pilot judgment against Germany on 2   September 2010 because legal protection had not yet been improved. The Court requested the German Government to introduce without delay and within maximum of one year after the judgment became final (i.e. by 2 December 2011), a remedy in the national legal system in order to bring it in line with the Convention requirements.   2.   Individual measures   a) Just satisfaction In all cases, the compensation awarded was paid within the time limit set by the Court. The amounts paid and the payment dates are listed in Annex 1.   b) Domestic proceedings It has now been possible to conclude the domestic proceedings with legal force in 66 out of 71 cases.   The domestic proceedings which it has not yet been possible to finally conclude have been continued since the respective judgments of the Court. Annex 2 contains an overview of the status of these sets of proceedings, also showing the progress that has been made in the proceedings.   The Federal Government has stressed in these cases towards the authorities and courts concerned that full implementation of the judgments also encompasses the duty to conclude the proceedings that are still pending within a reasonable period and without any culpable delays. In order to make sure that this takes place, they are closely monitored by the Federal Government. The Federal Government hence calls for reports from the competent authorities at regular intervals in all cases on the progress that has been achieved in the proceedings, and requests to be provided with information on steps that have been taken serving to achieve the conclusion of the proceedings. Accordingly, all authorities concerned regularly inform the Federal Government of the progress made in the proceedings. According to these reports, all sets of proceedings are now being rapidly pursued.   3.   General measures   a) Publication and dissemination of the judgments The courts that were involved in the court proceedings, whose decision formed the basis of the applications, have been notified of the judgments. Furthermore, German translations of the judgments were sent to all the Ministries of Justice of the Länder for notification within their remit.   In addition to this, German translations of the judgments were published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice in the Ministry’s case-law database ( www.bmj.de/egmr ).   Furthermore, the translations were sent to several important publishing houses that bring out legal periodicals. Thereupon, several judgments were published in legal periodicals. A list of publications can be found on www.egmr.org . The pilot judgment in the case of R. v. Germany has been published in the “ Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift ” (EuGRZ 2010, p. 700) and the “ Neue Juristische Wochenschrift ” (NJW 2010, 3355).   Moreover, the judgments have been included in the reports drawn up in the Federal Ministry of Justice, entitled “Report on the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the Execution of its Judgments in Cases against the Federal Republic of Germany”. These reports have been widely disseminated and published on the Federal Ministry of Justice website at www.bmj.de .   b) Presentation of the report on the implementation of the judgments in Parliament The annual reports on the Court’s case-law and the implementation of the judgments in cases against Germany were also forwarded to the competent committees of the German Federal Parliament and of the Federal Council (Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on Human Rights, Petitions Committee). Additionally, individual reports have been presented by the Federal Government in the plenary of the Committee on Human Rights and discussed with the delegates.   c) Federation- Länder Conference An annual conference has been held at the Federal Ministry of Justice, attended by representatives of the Länder , the Federal Ministries and the Federal Courts. The judge at the European Court of Human Rights elected for Germany also attended the conferences. A major topic of the conferences was excessively long court proceedings and the creation of effective legal protection in case of such proceedings. The conferences made a major contribution towards heightening the awareness of the need to take effective measures against excessively long proceedings.   d) Basic and further training of judges and public prosecutors The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights plays a major role in the basic and further training of judges and public prosecutors in the light of the case-law of the ECHR. Specifically, the topic of “excessively long proceedings” has been the subject of several different further training events held at the German Judicial Academy and in the further training facilities of the Länder . For instance, the Agents for the Federal Government reported regularly to the German Judicial Academy on the case-law of the ECHR. This has also dealt with how to avoid excessively long sets of proceedings.   e) Statistics The average duration of proceedings in Germany has been at a constantly low level for several years. For instance, civil court proceedings before the Local Courts take an average of fewer than five months.   Duration of court proceedings (starting instance) (Source: Fachserie 10 Reihe 2.1 - 2.8 of the Federal Statistical Office/DeStatis)   Average length of proceedings in months 2010 and 2011 Average length of proceedings in months 2007 Civil courts   Local Court (2011): 4.7 Local Court (2007): 4.5 Regional Court (2011): 8.2 Regional Court (2007): 7.9 Family courts 7.0 (2011) 10.1 (2007) Criminal courts Local Court (2011): Criminal proceedings: 3.8 Fines proceedings: 2.9 Local Court (2007): Criminal proceedings: 4.0 Fines proceedings: 2.7 Regional Court (2011): 6.4 Regional Court (2007): 6.3 Administrative courts Administrative Courts (2011): 10.8 Administrative Courts (2007): 13.9 Regional Administrative Courts (2011) 15.8 Regional Administrative Courts (2007) 12.4 Social courts 14.0 (2011) 13.7 (2007) Labour courts 3.1 (2011) 3.1 (2007) Finance courts 16.8 (2011) 18.5 (2007)   The longer proceedings before the social courts are a consequence of the large number of highly complex cases in which the expertise of external experts is required. This particularly relates to pension and compensation rights, such as the recognition of an occupational disease as a prerequisite for an invalidity pension (cf. Fachserie 10 Reihe 2.7 of the Federal Statistical Office/DeStatis).   f) Organisational measures to reduce the length of proceedings Where structural problems were identified, measures have been taken to improve the situation.   For example, with regard to the case of O. v. Germany (1 and 2) (Nos. 10597/03 and 26073/03): The Court found that unreasonable delays occurred before the Cologne investigation authorities and the Regional Court due to staff shortages. A special division composed of highly qualified experts was created in the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s office in 2003 to deal with organised economic crimes and large-scale criminal cases. Modern technological facilities were installed. In 2009, additionally recruited prosecutors in North-Rhine Westphalia were allocated to divisions dealing with economic crimes. Furthermore, Cologne Regional Court has also been reinforced with additional personnel. Members of the civil section have been assisting the criminal section for several years. Four additional judges have been assigned to Cologne Regional Court since May 2007. These measures have helped accelerate criminal proceedings.   Another example is the case of K. and T. v. Germany (Nos. 45749/06 and 51115/06): At the time the proceedings were pending, the Federal Constitutional Court faced an extraordinary workload. A variety of relief measures were taken to improve the situation. An additional registry was set up. Four more legal staff members have been employed in the scientific service of the Federal Constitutional Court. The number of scientific staff members was increased by a total of 12 persons from 1999 to 2005.   g) Legislative measures to ensure legal protection in the case of excessive length of court proceedings and criminal investigation proceedings Draft legislation was drawn up very soon after the pilot judgment. The Act on Legal Redress for Excessive Length of Court Proceedings and of Criminal Investigation Proceedings aims to do justice to Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court. The Act entered into force one year after the pilot judgment became final on 3 December 2011. It provides a remedy against proceedings of excessive length in two steps:   Acceleratory remedy The first step requires those affected to file a complaint about the delay to the court that in their view is working too slowly. This helps to avoid proceedings of excessive length from the outset. The “delay objection” permits judges to remedy the situation. This means that people cannot merely allow a set of proceedings to take a long course and later claim compensation.   Compensatory remedy If the proceedings continue to be delayed despite the complaint, a claim for compensation may be filed as a second step . In these compensation proceedings, the affected citizens receive, as a general rule, €1,200 per year for so-called non-pecuniary disadvantages – for example, for psychological and physical burdens caused by the long proceedings – where reparations of another type are not sufficient. In addition to compensation for a non-pecuniary disadvantage, there is appropriate compensation for a pecuniary disadvantage, for example if the unreasonably long proceedings lead to a company’s insolvency.   The new claim to compensation is not dependent on fault. This means that it does not matter whether judges can be blamed for the delay. In addition to the new compensation rules, claims for official liability – as in the past – may also be lodged if the delay is based upon a culpable violation of official duties. In such cases, comprehensive compensation for damage may be claimed, for example compensation for lost profits.   Protection against proceedings of excessive length will result in positive effects for the justice system as a whole. In cases where there is a large number of complaints due to the length of the proceedings, those responsible will need to reflect on how to improve facilities, the distribution of responsibilities and organisation. The legislation thereby not only enhances legal protection before the German courts, but in fact strengthens the courts themselves as well.   An English version of the Act is available on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice: http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/pdfs/Act_on_Legal_%20Redress_for_Excessive_Length_of_Court_Proceedings_and_of_Criminal_Investigation_Proceedings.pdf?__blob=publicationFile .   h)   Effectiveness of the new legal protection After the above Act came into force, the European Court of Human Rights, with its rulings of 29   May 2012 in the cases of T. v. Germany (No. 53126/07) and G. v. Germany (No. 19488/09) amongst others, rejected as inadmissible complaints of excessively long proceedings because the applicants had failed to exhaust all the domestic remedies. The Court ruled that the applicants had first to claim compensation in Germany in accordance with the new Legal Redress Act before the Court could deal with the application.   The Court however explicitly indicated that its position may be subject to review in the future, particularly depending on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent case-law under the Legal Redress Act in line with the Convention requirements. The Court furthermore indicated that, in any new applications, the burden of proof as to the effectiveness of the new remedy would lie in practice with the respondent Government (T. v. Germany (No.   53126/07), marginal No.   45 and G. v. Germany (No. 19488/09), marginal No.   48.)   There have now been various rulings on the basis of the new Act.   For instance, the Higher Administrative Court of the Land Saxony-Anhalt ruled by judgment of 25   July 2012 (ref: 7 KE 1/11) that court proceedings before Halle Administrative Court had all in all lasted for an inappropriately long period. One could presume that the length of the proceedings was inappropriate if a weighing up of all the circumstances indicated that the obligation incumbent on the State to effect a conclusion of court proceedings within a reasonable period in line with the above provisions had been violated. In the specific case, a police officer had objected to being transferred to a different department within her police station. The proceedings before the Administrative Court were concluded two years after the action had been received. The Senate found that in view of the low level of difficulty and complexity of the proceedings, the total period of processing of the initial legal dispute at more than two years, and its processing in individual stages of the proceedings, was no longer reasonable within the meaning of the Act on Legal Redress for Excessive Length of Court Proceedings, and awarded to the police officer compensation of 1,864.87 € for material damage and compensation of 1,200.00 € for non-pecuniary damage (Annex 3). The Federal Administrative Court confirmed the ruling by judgment of 11 July 2013 (ref: 5 C 27.12   D).   In another set of proceedings, Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court found by judgment of 27   March 2012 (ref: 3 A 1.12) that proceedings before the Administrative Court had been excessively long, and awarded 4,000 € to the applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In the underlying proceedings, a student had complained of being asked to re-pay an educational promotion subsidy. Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court found that the proceedings had not been pursued over a period of three years and four months without any adequate justification. Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the court emphasised that the Land against which the action was directed was not able to invoke the general workload of the administrative courts in the period in question. The courts had to make sustained efforts to accelerate the proceedings as their duration became longer. The respondent Land was obliged to organise its legal system in such a way that its courts were able to guarantee the right of the individual to bring about a ruling with legal force within a reasonable period (Annex 4). On 11 July 2013 the Federal Administrative Court reversed the judgment (ref: 5 C 23.12 D). It found that there had been an unjustified delay of five years and that the applicant therefore had to be awarded the total sum of 6,000 € as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.   A further ruling related to the excessive duration of a set of criminal proceedings. By judgment of 24   October 2012, Celle Higher Regional Court (23 SchH 3/12) awarded compensation of 3,000 € to the person concerned for the excessive length of the investigation proceedings pursued against him on suspicion of perjury and attempted obstruction of justice. The Higher Regional Court presumed an unjustified delay of two years and six months in this case. No notable promotion of the proceedings had taken place during this period. Since the appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice was admitted, this ruling does not yet have legal force (Annex 5).   By judgment of 7   November 2012, Celle Higher Regional Court (23 SchH 2/12) awarded 3,600   € to a plaintiff in damages for excessively long civil proceedings. In the underlying proceedings, the plaintiff requested compensation and damages for pain and suffering for medical malpractice. The Higher Regional Court found that there had been an unjustified delay totalling three years in connection with obtaining a report by an expert witness (Annex 6).   By judgment of 29   November 2012 (L 10 SF 5/12 ÜG), Saxony-Anhalt Higher Social Court found that the duration of a set of proceedings before the social courts had been unreasonable, and awarded damages of 2,400.00 € to the plaintiff. Since the appeal on points of law to the Federal Social Court has been admitted, this ruling does not yet have legal force (Annex 7).   By ruling of 13   August 2012 (1 BvR 1098/11), the Federal Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible a complaint because of the duration of social court proceedings at first instance for lack of a need for legal protection, pointing to the new Legal Redress Act. The Federal Constitutional Court found in this ruling that the duration of the proceedings before the social court was not reasonable. The Federal Constitutional Court emphasised once more that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings was to be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case concerned. In particular, the difficulty of the material to be ruled on, the need for factual investigations, the importance of what was at stake in the case for the participants and their own conduct in the proceedings were significant here. The Federal Constitutional Court went on to state that an excessive workload of a court – unlike unforeseeable coincidences or twists of fate – falls within the area of responsibility of the constitutional state. It is incumbent on the Länder to ensure within their remit adequate material and staffing for the courts to enable them to perform their justice mandate in a manner meeting the requirements of Art. 19 §   4 sentence   1 of the Basic Law (GG). The Länder must also react in such cases to any prolonged periods of incapacity for work of the judicial staff by taking suitable action (Annex 8).   By rulings of 28   January 2013 (2 BvR 1912/12), 20   June 2012 (2 BvR 1565/11) and 30   May 2012 (1 BvR 2292/11), the Federal Constitutional Court did not admit constitutional complaints because of excessive length of proceedings that had been lodged for adjudication since the applicants had omitted to lodge a damage action in accordance with section   198 subs.   1 sentence   1 of the Courts Constitution Act ( GVG ). A further non-admission ruling was based on the initial proceedings which had been regarded as too long now having been concluded (order of 13   August 2012 (1 BvR 1098/11)).   Rulings of the Higher Regional Courts can be appealed by an appeal on points of law. The rulings of the Federal Courts which have already been handed down since the new law came into force relate to the admissibility of other remedies (Federal Court of Justice, order of 29   November 2012, VIII ZB 49/12), granting legal aid in connection with damage actions (Federal Court of Justice: orders of 20   December 2012; III ZA 33/12; of 8   November 2012, III ZA 27/12; of 25   October 2012 - III ZB 64/12; of 27   June 2012, III ZB 45/12; Federal Finance Court: orders of 12   March 2013, X S 12/13 (PKH)); of 26   July 2012, X S 18/12 (PKH); obligation to have counsel in damage actions (Federal Finance Court, judgment of 6   February 2013, X K 11/12), the impact of the unreasonable length of proceedings in disciplinary proceedings (Federal Administrative Court, orders of 22   January 2013 - 2 B 89.11; of 30   August 2012 - 2 B 21.12; of 1   June 2012, 2 B 123.11; of 16   May 2012 - 2 B 3.12; judgment of 29   March 2012 – Federal Administrative Court 2 A 11.10), as well as the questions concerning the degree to which the excessive length of a set of proceedings can constitute grounds for the admission of an appeal on points of law only (Federal Finance Court, order of 9   January 2013, X B 114/12), and when a delay in proceedings in breach of the rule of law applies in criminal proceedings (Federal Court of Justice, order of 5   December 2012, 1 StR 531/12).   4.   Conclusion   It can be found against this background that the German case-law is appropriately applying the Act, which came into force in December 2011, with which an appeal against excessively long proceedings was created. The pilot judgment R. (No. 46344/06) has hence been implemented. Annex 1   List of cases R. v. Germany group     No. Judgment Just satisfaction (total) Paid on 1 Pilot 46344/06 02/09/2010 13,990.00 30.12.2010 2 54215/08 26/11/2009 2,380.00 19.03.2010 3 44036/02 04/12/2008 7,500.00 18.05.2009 4 39444/08 24/06/2010 10,433.83 22.09.2010 5 10732/05 09/10/2008 2,469.65 12.02.2009 6 1479/08 23/04/2009 9,000.00 12.08.2009 7 8453/04 16/07/2009 6,500.00 04.12.2009 8 21965/09 21/07/2011 5,050.00 19.10.2011 9 7634/05 05/03/2009 3,000.00 03.09.2009 10 1126/05 16/07/2009 1,750.00 07.12.2009 11 17878/04 11/06/2009    500.00 30.09.2009 12 7369/04 26/03/2009 1,500.00 12.08.2009 13 40014/05 08/07/2010 4,900.00 07.01.2011 14 39778/07 11171/08 43336/08 52719/08 15895/09 16123/09 16127/09 16129/09 27529/09 27533/09 27596/09 16/12/2010 30,000.00 14.03.2011 15 2693/07 21/10/2010 6,000.00 19.01.2011 16 1679/03 10/01/2008 12,163.46 08.07.2008 17 66491/01 05/10/2006 59,000.00 22.06.2007 18 43155/08 21/10/2010 12,796.99 19.01.2011 19 57249/00 31/07/2003 12,000.00 23.12.2003 20 20027/02 11/01/2007 10,000.00 09.07.2007 21 397/07 2322/07 13/01/2011 10,000.00 16.09.2011 22 1182/05 09/04/2009 2,500.00 07.10.2009 23 39641/08 03/03/2011 - - 24 10053/08 22/12/2009 4,000.00 31.03.2010 25 11811/10 30/06/2011 3,300.00 28.09.2011 26 37820/06 08/10/2009 - - 27 19124/02 15/02/2007 4,000.00 09.10.2007 28 21061/06 22/12/2009 3,000.00 31.03.2010 29 17384/06 24/06/2010 11,500.00 22.09.2010 30 21980/06 26944/07 36948/08 20/01/2011 10,000.00 20.07.2011 31 41599/09 21/04/2011 8,945.73 19.07.2011 32 53550/09 20/10/2011 6,000.00 16.01.2012 33 14635/03 26/04/2007 - - 34 58911/00 06/11/2008 4,000.00 04.05.2009 35 71972/01 11/06/2009 8,880.00 19.03.2010 36 37111/04 29/09/2011 4,850.00 27.12.2011 37 3810/06 13/10/2011 2,670.00 11.01.2012 38 3863/06 13/10/2011 5,150.00 11.01.2012 39 37264/06 13/10/2011 3,650.00 11.01.2012 40 41629/07 13/10/2011 - - 41 32637/08 13/10/2011 - - 42 36395/07 25/02/2010 500.00 23.08.2010 43 39741/02 12/07/2007 8,397.35 11.01.2008 44 12852/08 01/04/2010 - - 45 32513/08 21/10/2010 3,000.00 19.01.2011 46 27250/02 29/06/2006 5,618.16 08.03.2007 47 10597/03 13/11/2008 20,000.00 11.05.2009 48 26073/03 13/11/2008 14,000.00 11.05.2009 49 28348/09 22/09/2011 17,164.54 20.12.2011 50 25756/09 24/06/2010 2,000.00 22.09.2010 51 901/05 25/03/2010 10,000.00 19.05.2010 52 34236/06 13/01/2011 5,000.00 01.07.2011 53 485/09 25/03/2010 12,644.20 23.06.2010 54 32338/07 30/03/2010 10,736.25 19.04.2010 55 21423/07 24/06/2010 4,000.00 22.09.2010 56 2651/07 21/10/2010 2,600.00 19.01.2011 57 46682/07 30/03/2010 5,132.61 03.05.2010 58 76680/01 10/05/2007 2,000.00 27.12.2007 59 47757/06 08/10/2009 14,000.00 08.02.2010 60 854/07 29/09/2011 270.00 06.06.2012 61 38033/02 13/07/2006 2,900.00 11.01.2007 62 75529/01 08/06/2006 [GC] 14,672.89 06.09.2006 63 32936/09 21/10/2010 14,879.20 19.01.2011 64 64387/01 10/02/2005 2,000.00 05.08.2005 65 54188/07 30/03/2010 23,188.59 30.04.2010 66 40009/04 07/01/2010 - - 67 17019/08 22/09/2011 12,600.00 20.12.2011 68 38187/08 18/11/2010 3,100.00 16.02.2011 69 30175/07 25/03/2010 9,000.00 12.04.2010 70 974/07 21/12/2010 17,943.91 17.06.2011 71 42402/05 42423/05 21/01/2010 9,500.00 19.07.2010     Annex 2   Sets of proceedings in which the Court found a violation of Art. 6 § 1 for excessively long proceedings where the underlying domestic proceedings had not yet been concluded at the time of the Court’s judgment Version: October 2012   Proceedings,     Judgement of Domestic proceedings Continuation of proceedings/current status   Proceedings currently still pending: No.   43155/08 21   October 2010 Munich Higher Regional Court   The Higher Regional Court partly granted the applicant’s action by judgment of 17   November 2011, which is final. However, the Higher Regional Court remitted the dispute to Munich I Regional Court for a renewed trial and ruling as to the amount of material damage suffered by the applicant. The complaint against non-admission lodged against this to the Federal Court of Justice by the respondent was dealt with by order of 24   April 2012. The written statement of counsel for the defendant was received on 18   September 2012 and was immediately forwarded to counsel for the plaintiff. The judge dealing with the case worked through the files during her holiday; the chamber is currently preparing to set a date for the settlement hearing. In this respect, counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff is unavailable for the period from 7   January to 5   February 2013. No.   32338/07 30 March 2010 Landau/Pfalz Regional Court, Palatinate Higher Regional Court Zweibrücken A judgment was handed down by the Regional Court on 13   January 2011. An appeal on points of fact and law was filed with Zweibrücken Higher Regional Court against this judgment. A hearing took place on 23   November 2011. The parties did not accept a settlement proposed by the Senate. The plaintiffs subsequently submitted a new statement on the facts. Thereupon, an order on the taking of evidence was handed down on 3   August 2012 to commission an expert report on the accident. The report is currently being drawn up by an expert witness. The proceedings before the Higher Regional Court are still pending. No.   32936/09 21 October 2010 Darmstadt Regional Court After necessary expert reports had been obtained and various statements had been submitted, a settlement was reached on 15   August 2012, which was however withdrawn by the respondent. The Regional Court handed down a judgment on 12   December 2012. After an appeal on points of fact and law had been lodged, the case is now pending at second instance with Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court. No.   53550/09 20   October 2011 Cottbus Social Court, Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Social Court An appeal on points of fact and law was lodged on 7   July 2010 against the judgment of the Social Court. On application by the plaintiff, the Regional Social Court commissioned an expert report. The expert witness acknowledged the existence of an occupational disease, but with no pension entitlement. After the respondent had made a statement, an additional statement was requested from the expert witness. The proceedings before the Regional Social Court are still pending because of the need to consult an additional expert report. No.   40009/04 7   January 2010 Public liability proceedings Wiesbaden Regional Court (7 O 58/98 and 9 O 283/11)   A judgment was handed down before Wiesbaden Regional Court on 18   May 2012. The judgment has however not yet gained legal force, given that an appeal on points of fact and law has been lodged. The proceedings for the appeal on points of fact and law are continuing.   Proceedings which have now been concluded with legal force:   No.   27529/09       16   December 2010   Hanover Social Court/Lower Saxony Regional Social Court The Regional Social Court amended the judgment of Hanover Social Court of 26   September 2007 on 12   May 2010 and sentenced the defendant to rule anew on the applicant’s hardship application, taking account of the court’s legal opinion.   On 9   February 2011, the Federal Social Court rescinded the judgment of the Regional Social Court of 12   May 2010 and remitted the case to the Regional Social Court.   The Regional Social Court ruled once more on 21   March 2012; same content as in the judgment of 12   May 2010.   The Federal Social Court rejected the complaint against non-admission (B 6 KA 24/12B) submitted by the plaintiff on 11   June 2012 with order of 12   December 2012. The proceedings are hence concluded with legal force No.   1479/08   23   April 2009 Göttingen Regional Court The proceedings were concluded with final and binding force by judgment of the Regional Court of 28   May 2009 . The appeal on points of law only was not admitted by the Higher Regional Court. No.   11811/10 30 June 2011 Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court Judgment of Berlin Administrative Court of 21   July 2010 (VG 19 A 159.07). On 2   October 2012, Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court rejected the motion to admit the appeal on points of fact and law (OVG 2 N 88.10). The proceedings have hence been concluded with legal force since 2   October 2012 . No.   71972/01   11   June 2009 Munich Labour Court and Munich Regional Labour Court The proceedings were concluded by the judgments of Munich Labour Court in July 2010 and of the Regional Labour Court in February 2011. No.   37111/04 29   September 2011 Munich Labour Court (27 Ca 915/91 new 27 Ca 7831/00), Munich Regional Labour Court (3 Sa 1281/05)   Proceedings relating to night work allowances for the period from 1   July to 31   December 1988 (approx. 1,950 EUR) and the refund of the costs of a trip to Paris (approx. 220 EUR). Main case: Judgment of Munich Regional Labour Court of 3   May 2004: action rejected; Appeal on points of fact and law dealt with by final judgment of 25 August 2006; Legal aid application rejected (5 AZA 15/06) to make a complaint against non-admission by order of 20   February 2007. Hence concluded with legal force since 25   August 2006   Taxation of costs: Order fixing costs of 7   March 2008; Complaint (10 Ta 391/08) rejected by order of 25   September 2008; concluded with legal force after rejection of the complaint because of the right to be heard lodged after several motions of challenge with order of 15   February 2010   No.   3810/06 13   October 2011 Munich Labour Court (8 Ca 20737/93 new most recently: 8 Ca 7395/03 of which separation 8 Ca 16686/07 on 12   December 07)   Munich Regional Labour Court (11 Sa 78/08 and 11 Sa 77/08, 3 Sa 126/09)   Applicant requested submission of accounts for all salaries which his employer was said to owe to him for the period from 1   July 88 to 31   December 93, the payment of the salaries for this period, as well as a finding that RFE/RL was obliged to pay to him his salary from 1   July 88. Main case: 8 Ca 7395/03 : judgment of 12   December 07; appeal on points of fact and law (11 Sa 77/08) rejected with order of 16   December 09. Hence concluded with legal force since 16   December 2009. Complaint against rejection of legal aid (11 SHa 3/08 = 10 Ta 471/10) dealt with by order of 5   October 2012   8 Ca 16686/07: 1. partial judgment of 12   December 07 = 11 Sa 78/08, hence finally dealt with since 16   December 09 2. residual claims: withdrawal and hence final since 3   May 10 3. of which separated on 22   December 08 = 8 Ca 308/09:   8 Ca 308/09 : Appeal on points of fact and law lodged against judgment of 22   December 08 (3 Sa 126/09). Concluding judgment of 9   July 10 (5 AZN 1141/10). final since 26   January 2011 .   Taxation of costs: In 8 Ca 308/09 : Immediate complaint of 5   September 12 against last cost finding for 3rd instance = 10 Ta 307/12, concluded with legal force since 4   October 2012 No.   32637/08 13   October 2011 Munich Labour Court (7a Ca 16489/97); Munich Regional Labour Court (4 Sa 533/05)   Action for a finding that employment had not been dissolved by dismissal, as well as for further employment, compensation and continued wage payment and granting of an additional pension payment Main case: Judgment of Munich Labour Court of 11   August 2004, appeal on points of fact and law concluded with final judgment of 19   July 2007, Complaint against non-admission (2 AZN 415/08) is rejected with order of 28   August 2008 Hence concluded with legal force since 28   August 2008   Taxation of costs: Order fixing costs of 30   June 2009 Complaint (10 Ta 98/09) rejected with order of 30   June 2009, Hence concluded with legal force since 30   June 2009 Order fixing costs corrected with order of 3   June 2011   The proceedings have been fully concluded. No.   485/09   25   March 2010 Hanover Regional Court Proceedings concluded with legal force by judgment of Hanover Regional Court of 2   March 2010 No.   54188/07 30 March 2010 Munich Regional Court; Munich Higher Regional Court; Nuremberg Higher Regional Court   The proceedings before Nuremberg Higher Regional Court were concluded by settlement of 2   November 2010 . No.   38187/08   18 November 2010 North Rhine-Westphalia Regional Social Court The proceedings before the Regional Social Court were concluded by a settlement on 28   November 2011 .     [1] Anglais uniquement.