CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 May 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 49528/16 Erwin ZACHARIAS against Germany lodged on 16 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of civil proceedings in which the applicant was the defendant as well as the effectiveness of the domestic remedy, Section 198 of the Courts Act ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ), in respect of his complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings. The Federal Court of Justice considered that the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had divided the proceedings at issue into three distinct phases and which had found that the length of the first and the third phase of the proceedings was not excessive, did not contain errors in law. Regarding the second phase of the proceedings (March 2010 to August 2011), the Federal Court of Justice considered that it could be left open whether the length of the proceedings was excessive, as the applicant had, in any event, not suffered a non-pecuniary disadvantage warranting compensation as result of the length of the proceedings. The applicant limited his constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court to the decisions of the domestic courts in respect of the second phase of the proceedings (March 2010 to August 2011). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did Section 198 of the Courts Act, in light of the Federal Court of Justice’s reasoning, constitute a remedy capable of dealing with the substance of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive, and of granting appropriate relief?