CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 2 April 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34830/18 Stefan PULS against Germany lodged on 14 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of civil proceedings before the ordinary courts. The applicant was the defendant in civil proceedings concerning a compensation claim of roughly EUR 21,500, which lasted from 3 March 2006 until 28 March 2013 for one instance. The applicant subsequently requested compensation for 17 months of undue delay. The Schleswig-Holstein Court of Appeal acknowledged that there had been an undue delay of 13 months, but rejected the applicant’s claim for financial compensation. Before the Court, the applicant complained that the length of civil proceedings had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The domestic courts had failed to award him adequate compensation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?   2.     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?