CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8885BAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#2d2d2d } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 24 April 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15744/21 Mariusz BRODZIAK against Poland and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications are follow-up cases to the leading judgment Bieliński v.   Poland , no.   48762/19, 21 July 2022. They concern an amendment to legislation by which retirement benefits of former uniformed services were considerably decreased. The applicants have all been involved in civil proceedings relating to their appeals against the decisions decreasing their old-age pensions. The decisions decreasing the pensions were immediately enforceable. The proceedings before the first instance court were stayed pending the decision of the Constitutional Court which, on 24 January 2018, had been asked legal questions as regards the constitutionality of the provisions introducing new calculation methods for old-age pensions. Subsequently, all sets of proceedings were resumed even though the Constitutional Court had issued no judgment. They are currently pending before the Regional Courts. All applicants made use of the available remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings; they lodged complaints under the 2004   Act. Their complaints were dismissed by the Court of Appeal which held, among other things, that the length of proceedings could not be attributable to the Regional Court which had stayed the proceedings pending examination of the legal questions put before the Constitutional Court. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings and that the length effectively deprived them of access to court. They also allege, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they have no effective remedy to challenge the excessive length of proceedings in their cases.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present applications in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that the dispute concerns the calculation of an old ‑ age pension and the decisions decreasing the pension were immediately enforceable.   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy to put before the domestic authorities the alleged violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   List of applications No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 15744/21 24/01/2021 Brodziak v.   Poland Mariusz BRODZIAK 1958 Bydgoszcz Polish   2. 16453/21 23/02/2021 Lewandowska v.   Poland Elżbieta LEWANDOWSKA 1960 Warszawa Polish Katarzyna PRZYBOROWSKA 3. 10823/22 14/02/2022 Niewczas v.   Poland Julian NIEWCZAS 1954 Warszawa Polish Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 4. 27406/22 12/05/2022 Śledziecki v.   Poland Jacek ŚLEDZIECKI 1957 Warszawa Polish Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 5. 28783/22 24/05/2022   Dąbrowska v.   Poland Irena DĄBROWSKA 1950 Warszawa Polish Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 6. 7666/23 28/01/2023   Leszczak v.   Poland Waldemar LESZCZAK 1958 Nowogard Polish