CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sA85A9A3D { font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sDDB50A14 { color:#ff0000 } .sCC5C9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s77B7D1D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-size:12pt } .s95E15B89 { width:32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s35E51398 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .s935F9015 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s2B868F03 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE8AF066E { height:5.65pt } .s66AFC7B8 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s21E85627 { 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:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC3F66CA8 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9519D64C { 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:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s365145C2 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .sA8FC57DF { 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:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9AE136CD { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s8F37AF68 { 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:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .sDAB88B76 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .s3FA3A47B { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:5.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23F41571 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s78A86173 { text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24C2CA8A { width:31.33pt; display:inline-block } .sF4B04561 { margin-left:0.25pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sCC3B9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sCD019D73 { letter-spacing:-0.4pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)28 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   in 143 cases against Poland (see Appendix II)   relating to the excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No.   11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the great number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) finding Poland in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings before the civil and criminal courts (see Appendix II to this resolution);   Having regard to the fact that in several cases the Court also found that there had been a violation of Article   13 of the Convention in that the applicants had no domestic remedy whereby they might enforce their right to a “hearing within a reasonable time” as guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention (e.g. Kudła against Poland, judgment of 26 October 2000 and D.M. against Poland, judgment of 14   October   2003);   Recalling that excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute a serious danger for the respect of the rule of law;   Recalling that the obligation of every state, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by the judgments of the Court involves an obligation rapidly to adopt the individual measures necessary to erase the consequences of the violations as well as to adopt general measures preventing new violations of the Convention similar to those found including provision of effective domestic remedies pending the entry into effect of the necessary changes;   Recalling in this respect the Committee of Ministers' Recommendation to member states Rec(2004)6 regarding the need to improve the efficiency of domestic remedies;   Stressing the importance of rapid adoption of such measures in cases where judgments reveal structural problems which may give rise to a large number of new, similar violations of the Convention;   Having invited Poland to inform it of the measures adopted or being taken in consequence of the judgments concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings and h aving examined the information provided by the Polish authorities in this respect (as it appears in the Appendix I to this interim resolution);   Measures to remedy the excessive length of proceedings   Having noted the individual measures taken by the authorities to provide the applicants redress for the violations found ( restitutio in integrum ), in particular by accelerating as far as possible the proceedings which were still pending after the findings of violations by the Court (see details in Appendix I);   Welcoming the reforms adopted so far by the authorities in order to remedy the structural problems related to the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland, and in particular:   -                       the legislative reforms (new Code of Criminal Procedure and subsequent amendments) adopted in 1997 and 2003 aimed at simplifying and accelerating criminal proceedings;   -                       the additional administrative and structural measures adopted to prevent further, unreasonably long proceedings and to accelerate those which have already been excessively lengthy (in particular increasing the number of judges and administrative personnel, increasing courts' budgets and establishing of monitoring mechanisms); and   -                       the setting-up of a domestic remedy in 2004 for cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings allowing litigants to seek acceleration of the proceedings and claim compensation for damages caused by their excessive length;   Noting the statistical data provided by the Polish authorities and in particular the positive trend concerning the decrease in the number of “old” cases pending before civil courts (those pending for more than five years) and the increasing efficiency of criminal courts;   Noting, however, that the existing mechanism for evaluating the average length of judicial proceedings at national level is unclear and hinders supervision of the evolution of the duration of proceedings;   Measures to put right the lack of effective remedy   Welcoming the creation of a domestic remedy in cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings and noting that the Court has already found, on the basis of the provisions of the legislation of 2004, that it satisfies the “effectiveness” test established in the Kudła judgment (see Appendix I, Section II B);   Noting nevertheless that the new remedy seems to exclude the possibility of complaining against the excessive length of the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings;   Underlying that the creation of the new domestic remedy does not obviate the obligation to pursue with diligence the adoption of general measures required to prevent new violations of the Convention;     ENCOURAGES the Polish authorities, in view of the gravity of the systemic problem concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings:   -           to continue the examination and adoption of further measures to accelerate judicial proceedings and reduce the backlog of cases;   -           to establish a clear and efficient mechanism for evaluating the trend concerning the length of judicial proceedings; and   -           to ensure that the new domestic remedy is implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Convention and the case-law of the Court and to consider introducing such a remedy as regards the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings;   EXPECTS to receive further information soon on additional measures planned or already taken to comply with the judgments concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings and on the implementation in practice of the new remedy introduced in June 2004 and,   DECIDES to resume consideration of the outstanding individual measures and the general measures in these cases, in one year at the latest.   Appendix I to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)28   Information provided by the Government of Poland during the examination of the cases concerning the excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy by the Committee of Ministers     I.   Individual measures   In the majority of these cases, the domestic proceedings impugned by the European Court in its judgments have ended. Concerning the rest of the cases, the competent authorities have taken measures to accelerate the proceedings still pending (i.e. the cases were placed under the administrative supervision of the president of the court and of the Ministry of Justice; the president of the competent court was urged by the Ministry of Justice to give priority to the applicants' cases, etc.).     II.   General measures     A) Measures taken to reduce the length of criminal and civil proceedings   1. Legislative measures as regards the length of criminal proceedings   Measures introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1997   The Code of Criminal Procedure of 6 June 1997, which entered into force on 1 September 1998, has introduced the possibility under some conditions of conducting a hearing without the presence of a defendant if she or he refuses to participate in the trial or does not provide justification for her or his absence (Art.376 and 377). The opportunity to conduct a hearing without the presence of a defendant will considerably accelerate criminal proceedings, especially in cases brought against several co-defendants.   Measures introduced by the amendments to the 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure   The main purpose of the amendments to the Code which came into effect on 1 July 2003 was to introduce procedural mechanisms to speed up proceedings in criminal cases. The most important provide the following:   - preparatory proceedings and those concerning several co-defendants have been simplified by extending the range of offences liable to inquiry and not to investigation, which is more formal, and assigning the majority of investigations to the police instead of prosecutors (Art.325 b and 311§1);   - the possibilities of closing criminal proceedings by way of settlement have been extended (Art. 335, 343 and 387);   - first-instance courts may use at the trial stage evidence, such as testimonies, defendants' explanations or expert opinions collected during the preliminary investigation without the further hearing a witness, a defendant, an expert or other person, by reading aloud the relevant protocols, reports or other documents (Art. 377§4 and Art. 389, 391-394);   - the possibility of the remote hearing of witnesses by means of video conferences with the use of appropriate technical equipment (Art. 177§1 a);   - the court shall dismiss motions on evidence aimed at “obvious prolongation of the trial” (Art. 170§1 point 5);   - summonses may be served by fax or electronic mail (Art. 132§3);   - it is no longer necessary to re-hear a particular trial from the very beginning because the term of 35 days between subsequent hearings has been exceeded, if the parties so agree (Art. 404§2);   - when essential deficiencies in the pre-trial proceedings become apparent only at the hearing, courts may no longer refer the case back to the pre-trial proceedings stage for further inquiry to be carried out (Art. 397);   - special proceedings allowing prompt examination of a criminal case – the so-called “summary proceedings” and proceedings under writ of payment (decree proceedings) - were excluded from unnecessarily strict rules – see Art. 500 §§ 2 and 4 (e.g. concerning the summary proceedings the catalogue of cases considered under a simplified procedure now covers all cases in which an inquiry was carried out – see Art. 469);   - delays in criminal proceedings concerning several co-defendants due to the time taken to draft the reasons for the first-instance judgment will be reduced, as at present it is possible to draw up and to serve the reasons of the judgment only in respect of those of the co-defendants who requested it (Art. 423 §1a).     2. Legislative measures as regards the length of civil proceedings   Measures introduced by the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure   The most important provisions of the recent amendments to the Code (of 21 August 1997, 22   December   2004 and 28 July 2005) provide the following:   - law clerks ( referendarze sądowi ) are now allowed to perform certain acts in proceedings such as: making entries in the land and mortgage registers, establishing of a land register, registration of proceedings, issuing payment writs ( nakazy zapłaty ) in accelerated proceedings ( postępowanie upominawcze ) and examining applications for exemption from court fees;   - the institution of mediation has been established. Any civil case which can be examined in civil proceedings may be subject to mediation, which may end in a friendly settlement. Such a friendly settlement, if confirmed by a court, is tantamount to a friendly settlement concluded before the court. The costs of mediation are relatively low in comparison with the costs of court proceedings, which should be an additional incentive to use mediation;   - new regulations concerning arbitration ( sądownictwo polubowne ) have been introduced.   Measures introduced by the Act of 28 July 2005 on Court Fees:   Following the entry into force of this Act, other mechanisms to accelerate civil proceedings have been introduced: for instance, certain decisions concerning court fees may no longer be subject to appeal.     3. Administrative and structural measures concerning civil and criminal proceedings   Increase of the capacity of the judiciary (judges and staff)   Having been faced since 1989 with an increase of about 275 % in cases lodged with Polish courts, the government is aware of the need to increase the number of posts for judges and court administrative staff. The scale of this effort is illustrated by the increase of the number of judges from 7000 in 1989 to nearly 8000 in 2000. In 2002 courts were granted additional full-time posts for 230 judges, 50 assessors and 350   assistants.   Moreover, the post of judges' associate and that of law clerk were introduced in Poland in 2001 by the Law on the organisation of common courts, with the aim of reducing the work of judges with respect to various administrative tasks which did not require their examination.   The table below shows the levels of employment in the courts in 2003-2006: Reporting period judges assessors judges' associates law clerks assistants 2003 8 268 1 276 198 785 21 329 2004 8 232 1 595 498 985 22 255 2005 8 227 1 688 850 1 185 23 412 2006 (as foreseen in the budget for 2006) + 80 new posts + 800 new posts + 250 new posts + 1020 new posts     Organisation and management   As of 1 May 2005 the Warsaw courts were divided into two regional courts. Each regional court was divided into district courts. Consequently, in 2005 there was an improvement in the efficiency of the Warsaw courts in proceedings concerning social insurance cases.   Moreover, the Minister of Justice set up a special unit within his ministry. This unit has been entrusted with the task of assessing the work-load of judges and other court staff as well as with human resources management in common jurisdictions (and in particular their allocation and efficient use in courts). It has drawn up a method, based on objective criteria, of assigning posts for assistants and court clerks, and is currently working on an instrument allowing the assessment of the efficiency of judges' work, on the basis of the so-called pensum, that is the average number of cases concluded by judges in Poland. This method will be used to ensure a better allocation of posts, in particular by reshuffling posts from one court to another one.   Supervisory activities   The Ministry of Justice is also involved in analysing the causes of delays in judicial proceedings within the framework of its competence in the administrative supervision of courts' work. The Department of Common Courts within the Ministry of Justice is coordinating other initiatives in this field, such as inspecting courts where the average length of proceedings gives rise to concerns. The question of supervision has been included in the supervisory work of presidents of courts as a permanent task. In particular, presidents have been invited to:   -                       ask judges heading divisions to perform direct supervision, mainly for the purpose of fixing hearings as a priority in the so-called “old cases”; -                       organise meetings to sum up their results and identify any reasons for delays; and -                       undertake measures to request court experts to submit reports on time and to discipline the parties in the proceedings.   In 2003 the presidents of the Regional Courts were invited by the Ministry of Justice to examine the reasons for delays in all cases waiting for adjudication longer than 3 years. In addition, permanent monitoring of all proceedings lasting over five years is being carried out.   Moreover, the Minister of Justice recommended that the presidents of courts intensify their supervision of the assignment of court experts and discipline or discharge them if they do not perform their duties properly. The Minister of Justice further advised the presidents of courts to examine the legitimacy of decisions to stay proceedings and to assess the actions of heads of court sections in relation to stayed proceedings. In particular the presidents of courts have been called upon to supervise these proceedings, in which the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention or the domestic court allowed a complaint based upon the 2004 Act (see below).   Budget   The budgetary Act for 2002 allocated the amount of PLN 2   560   317   000 to expenditure of the common courts, which was 15.41% more than the budget for the judiciary in 2001. Between 2003 and 2006 a constant yearly growth of the courts' budget was registered: by 24.89% in 2003, by 10% in 2004, by 12% in 2005. In 2006 this budget amounted to PLN 4 638 462 000, an increase by 8 % in comparison with the expenses for common courts incurred in 2005 and by 45% in comparison with such expenses in 2002.   It should be noted that the budget of common courts was set up in accordance with the principles contained in the revised Act on Public Finance which entered into effect on 1 January 2002. Budgets became autonomous in such a way that the Minister of Finance does not have the authority to introduce any changes to the proposal submitted by the Minister of Justice – he simply includes the budget of common courts in the Government's draft of the budgetary act which is submitted to Parliament.   Court premises   The Ministry of Justice carries out numerous activities to improve office conditions, especially as regards courts in Warsaw, which operate in exceptionally difficult conditions. A new building was acquired, which will house the Warsaw-Praga District Court. Premises for another district court in Warsaw are also being sought.   Computerisation   Finally, IT projects, aimed at providing computerised support to courts and Public Prosecutor's Offices to ensure access to different data bases have been developed in order to:   - lodge e-pleadings; - have remote access to information on proceedings, without having to appear in court in persona ; - replace traditional methods of recording with new digital techniques; - show the evidence by using multimedia; - use video conferences to enable a witness or an expert to be heard at a distance; - provide an electronic exchange of documents between the internal units of the justice system and persons outside; - keep evidence on electronic file; and - archive documents on proceedings in electronic files.   The main objectives of the IT programme are the following:   - computerising sections' secretariats (case-flow register, correspondence with participants in proceedings, access to public information etc.) and assisting the judges, law clerks and judges' associates in dispensing justice; - computerising courtrooms (recording of the hearings by using new digital techniques, e-docket); - introducing management and logistics resources (efficient use of resources and working time, scheduling of hearings for a whole court building; improving the organisation of court ushers); - electronic exchange of documents, e-claim, electronic access to information gathered and kept by court units (on-line access to courts' case-files and courts' registers).   4. Statistical data   Cases pending before all courts   The table below shows a steady increase of both new and completed cases brought before Polish civil and criminal courts between 2002 and 2006.   reporting period backlog new cases completed cases backlog (cases pending at the end of the reporting period) 2002 2   245 000 8   696 913 8   704 897 2   278 665 2003 2   278 665 9   521 329 9   679 823 2   122 222 2004 2   122 222 9   728 822 10   116 016 1   747 897 2005 1   747 897 9   581 613 9   834 086 1   496 229 2006 nearly 1   500 000 10 114 122 9 918 101 nearly 1 700 000   The table shows all cases brought in the Polish courts in the period from 2002 to 2006. In each reporting period the number of new cases was higher than that in the previous period (except in 2005). It should be noted that for the last 10 years there has been a considerable increase of new cases and this upward trend still continues. Nearly 4.9 million cases were brought to courts in 1995; in 2005 the new cases amounted to 9,5 million and in 2006 to 10,1 million. However, in each reporting period (except in 2006) the number of completed cases exceeded the number of new ones, which contributed to the reduction of the remaining backlog. Consequently, the total number of proceedings is declining and court efficiency is improving.   Cases pending before civil and labour courts   The table below shows the number of new and completed cases in a given branch of law between 2002 and 2006.   Type of cases 2002 new cases/ completed cases 2003 new cases/ completed cases 2004 new cases/ completed cases 2005 new cases/ completed cases 2006 new cases/ completed cases civil cases 2   162   594 2   476   251 2   478   745 2   432   639 2   337 382 2   079 218 2   452 344 2   620 476 2   465 799 2   264 092 commercial cases 1   057   938 1   048   681 1   016   690 944   329 952 359 1   063 636 1   078 828 1   099 957 980 653 931 877 labour law cases 332   908 401   122 326   056   255 767 222 981 325 338 374 001 339 000 296 000 227 847 social insurance cases 302   008 285   501 296   810 212   151 269 158 337 059 303 059 308 000 268 000 241 491 family law cases 944   500 981   440 988   649 1   077   219 1 123 860 994 000 981 998 1   009 000 1   062 000 1   115 313 land register cases 2   035   000 2   301   000 2   494   000 2   439   000 2   637 036 2   167 000 2   417 000 2   545 000 2   473 000 2   603 568   The above data show a decrease in the number of cases relating to labour law and social insurance as well as in commercial cases and land register cases. There has been a steady increase in the number of family law cases, criminal and civil cases.   As regards labour law cases, the average length of proceedings before first-instance courts was 3.4 months in the first half of 2005 and 2.7 months in the first half of 2006 before district courts. When such cases were examined by regional courts as first-instance courts, their average length amounted to 6.4 months in the first half of 2005 and 8.7 months in the second half of 2006. Thus there has been an increase in the length of proceedings. As regards the proceedings before regional courts as second-instance jurisdictions, the average length amounted respectively to 3.8 and 2.6 months, which shows an improvement.   Moreover, it should be noted that 2005 was the year in which the greatest number of such cases was brought before the Warsaw district courts: 20   384 new cases, which constituted an increase of more than 40%. Simultaneously, these courts concluded the greatest number of such cases: 26   309 cases were closed and thus a backlog amounting to 6   375 cases was reduced. The number of labour law cases examined in the second instance by the Warsaw Regional Court declined by more than 56%.   Cases pending before criminal courts:   The table below shows the number of cases which were brought to courts in a given reporting period and the number of completed cases.   Reporting period 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 criminal cases: new cases/completed cases 1   861   966 2   027   000 2   126   327 2   218   272 2   571 347 1   788   189 2   071   237 2   185 995 2   279 961 2 533 913   The improvement of criminal courts' efficiency was triggered by the overhaul of the Polish criminal procedure (see above).   5. Publication and dissemination   The European Court's judgments in the majority of these cases have been translated into Polish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice www.ms.gov.pl . They have been sent out to the courts directly concerned. The competent authorities' attention has been drawn in particular to the Convention's requirement of special diligence in handling some cases (e.g. cases relating to civil status, employment law, cases concerning compensation for medical malpractice, wrongful conviction etc), having regard to the particular importance of the proceedings for the applicants concerned.     B) Legislative measures to introduce an effective domestic remedy in cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings   New Polish legislation was introduced in June 2004 in response to the European Court of Human Right's Grand Chamber judgment in the case Kudła aginst Poland (judgment of 26/10/2000), in which the Court notably held that the lack of an effective remedy for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time was in violation of Article 13.   On 17 June 2004, the Polish Parliament adopted a Law on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (the 2004 Act) and a Law on Amendments to the Civil Code Concerning the Civil Liability of the State Treasury for Actions or Omissions of Public Authorities. They have been published in the Official journal, No. 179 and No. 162 of 2004 and entered into force respectively on 17 September 2004 and 1 September 2004.   1. A remedy aimed at accelerating proceedings and awarding compensation to the applicants   The 2004 Act allows parties to court proceedings to file a complaint concerning the length of their proceedings while those proceedings are still pending. The competent appellate court may find that there have been undue delays in the proceedings and recommend to the lower court to take measures to accelerate the proceedings . The appellate court can also award the complainant compensation of up to PLN 10,000 (approximately 2,550 euros). Additional compensation for damages can be sought in separate proceedings before the civil courts according to the general regime regulating the liability of the state for damages caused by an unlawful action or omission of public authorities (Article 417 et seq. of the Civil Code). The remedy introduced by the amendments to the Civil Code is also open to persons involved in proceedings which have been terminated.   2. Retroactivity of the new remedy   The new remedy introduced by the new legislation of June 2004 is also available to individuals who lodged applications with the European Court of Human Rights while their domestic proceedings were still pending even if the proceedings have subsequently been terminated, provided their applications have not yet been declared admissible by the Court (Article 18 of the 2004 Act). They had until 17 March 2005 to apply to the Polish courts.   3. First implementation results of the new remedy   Since the entry into force of the 2004 Act and until 31 December 2004, 2 528 complaints concerning excessive length of judicial proceedings have been filed before domestic courts. More than 80% of the complaints concerned civil cases. In 290 cases the competent courts found that there have been undue delays in the impugned proceedings. Compensation has been awarded in 165 of theses cases amounting to PLN 2 406 on average.   In 2005, the courts examined 4 921 complaints of that kind: 1 607 were dismissed (33%); 2 313 (47%) were declared inadmissible and 1001 (20 %) were allowed. In the first half of 2006 these figures stood at respectively: 1 879 579 (37 %); 835 (44%) and 361 (19%), in half of these cases just satisfaction was awarded).   Proceedings in which the court allowed the complaint are subject to supervision by the president of that court. In particular, the president of the court supervises whether the recommendations given by the court examining the complaint have been implemented. Should the court find that the judge caused the excessive length of proceedings, disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against him/her.   4. Positive assessment of the new remedy by the European Court   Finally, it should be noted that in March 2005 the European Court examined this remedy for the purposes of Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Convention and found it effective in respect of complaints about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland. In particular, it considered that it was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see decisions in Michalak against Poland, Application No. 24549/03, §§ 37-43 and Charzyński against Poland, Application No. 15212/03, §§ 36-42). The European Court also considered that from 17 September 2004, the date on which the 2004 Act entered into force, action for damages under Article 417 of the Civil Code had attained a sufficient level of certainty to become an “effective remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see decision in Krasuski against Poland, Application No. 61444/00, §74).   5. Other measures   The Polish government noted with interest the European Court's judgment delivered in the case of Scordino against Italy ( 29 March 2006), and in particular the rules for the assessment of non-pecuniary damage as a consequence of the length of proceedings (§§ 267-271 of the Scordino judgment). Bearing in mind that the problems indicated in the Scordino judgment might also become relevant in the near future with respect to the 2004 Act, the Polish gdecided to take the following steps in order to improve the domestic practice and consider possible amendments to the national legislation:   - the judgment was translated into Polish and sent out, together with an evaluation of the 2004 Act, to all institutions responsible for the administration of justice as well as to domestic courts. The translation of the judgment is also available on the website of the Ministry of Justice ( http://www.ms.gov.pl/re/re_wyroki.shtml ); - considerable attention was paid to the issue of implementing the 2004 Act in the course of drafting the governmental “Plan of Action with regard to execution of the ECHR judgments”. This document is being prepared by the representatives of the ministries involved in the execution of the European Court's judgments in Polish cases;   - the implementation of the 2004 Act by courts has been continuously discussed in the course of training organised for judges and prosecutors. On 4 September 2006 the National Training Centre for Judges and Prosecutors was inaugurated (cf. http://www.kcskspip.gov.pl ). Issues concerning the implementation of the 2004 Act will be included in the curriculum of the training organised by the Centre.   III.   Conclusion The Polish government believes that the measures set out above demonstrate its determination and the sustained efforts that it has already made with a view to improving the efficiency of the judicial system and to set up an effective domestic remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings. The Polish authorities will continue to take all necessary measures to that effect and will keep the Committee of Ministers informed of all new developments, and in particular of the practical implications of the measures adopted.     *   *   *                                                         Appendix II to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)28   - 132 cases before civil courts   Cases Adamscy, judgment of 27/07/04 Majewski and others, judgment of 08/11/05 Badowski, judgment of 08/11/05 Majewski, judgment of 11/10/05 Barszcz, judgment of 30/05/06 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03 Bednarska, judgment of 15/07/04 Małasiewicz, judgment of 14/10/03 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01 Majewski, judgment of 11/10/05 Biały, judgment of 27/07/04 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03 Biskupska, judgment of 22/07/03 Malinowska Henryka, judgment of 14/10/03 Bukowski, judgment of 11/02/03 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00 C., judgment of 03/05/01 Malinowska-Biedrzycka, judgment of 05/10/04 Cegielski, judgment of 21/10/03 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03 Chyb, judgment of 12/07/06 Małasiewicz, judgment of 14/10/03 Ciborek, judgment of 04/11/03 Marszał, judgment of 14/09/04 Czech, judgment of 15/11/05 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02 D.M., judgment of 14/10/03 Mejer and Jałoszyńska, judgment of 19/10/04 Dańczak, judgment of 21/12/04 Młynarczyk, judgment of 14/12/04 Dojs, judgment of 02/11/04 Nierojewska, judgment of 22/08/06 Domańska, judgment of 25/05/04 Nowak, judgment of 05/10/04 Dudek, judgment of 05/10/04 Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03 Durasik, judgment of 28/09/04 Pachnik, judgment of 30/03/04 Dybo, judgment of 14/10/03 Palka, judgment of 11/10/05 Falęcka, judgment of 05/10/04 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01 Fojcik, judgment of 21/09/04 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03 Gęsiarz, judgment of 18/05/04 Peryt, judgment of 02/12/03 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02 Gidel, judgment of 14/10/03 Pieniążek Irena, judgment of 28/09/04 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03 Góra, judgment of 27/04/04 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98 Górska, judgment of 03/06/03 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01 Grela, judgment of 13/01/04 Politikin, judgment of 27/04/04 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02 Porembska, judgment of 14/10/03 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03 Przygodzki, judgment of 05/10/04 Guzicka, judgment of 13/07/04 R.O., judgment of 25/03/03 Hajnrich, judgment of 25/05/04 R.P.D., judgment of 19/10/04 Hulewicz, judgment of 30/03/04 R.W., judgment of 15/07/03 I.P., judgment of 14/10/03 Ratajczyk, judgment of 18/07/06 Cases Iżykowska, judgment of 28/09/04 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03 Jablonska, judgment of 09/03/04 Romanow, judgment of 21/09/04 Janas, judgment of 21/09/04 Rychliccy, judgment of 18/05/04 Janik, judgment of 27/04/04 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02 Jastrzębska, judgment of 28/09/04 Sibilski, judgment of 04/10/05 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01 Sienkiewicz, judgment of 30/09/03 Kaczmarczyk, judgment of 24/01/06 Sikora, judgment of 05/10/04 Kaszubski, judgment of 24/02/04 Sikorski, judgment of 09/11/04 Koblański, judgment of 28/09/04 Sitarek, judgment of 15/07/03 Kolasiński, judgment of 01/02/05 Sitarski, judgment of 08/08/06 Koral, judgment of 05/11/02 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03 Korbel, judgment of 21/09/04 Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00 Kranc, judgment of 31/01/06 Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, judgment of 27/05/03 Kranz, judgment of 17/02/04 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98 Kreuz No. 2, judgment of 20/07/04 Surman-Januszewska, judgment of 27/04/04 Kreuz No 3, judgment of 24/01/06 Szarapo, judgment of 23/05/02 Kroenitz, judgment of 25/02/03 Szczeciński, judgment of 11/10/05 Król, judgment of 28/09/04 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02 Kruk, judgment of 05/10/04 W.M., judgment of 14/01/03 Krzak, judgment of 06/04/04 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02 Krzewicki, judgment of 27/04/04 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03 Wiatrzyk, judgment of 26/10/04 Kusiak, judgment of 21/09/04 Wierciszewska, judgment of 25/11/03 Kuśmierek, judgment of 21/09/04 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00 Kuśmierkowski, judgment of 05/10/04 Wojtkiewicz, judgment of 21/12/04 Ł., judgment of 27/07/04 Wylęgły J. and J., judgment of 03/06/03 Leszczyńska, judgment of 22/06/04 Wyszczelski, judgment of 29/11/05 Lipowicz, judgment of 19/10/04 Zarjewska, judgment of 21/12/04 Lisławska, judgment of 13/07/04 Zaśkiewicz, judgment of 30/11/04 Lizut-Skwarek, judgment of 05/10/04 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01 Łobarzewski, judgment of 25/11/03 Zmaliński, judgment of 22/03/05 Majchrzak, judgment of 22/08/06 Zynger, judgment of 13/07/04 Majewski and others, judgment of 08/11/05 Zys-Kowalski, judgment of 28/09/04   - 11 before criminal courts   Cases Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber   Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02 A.W., judgment of 24/06/2004 Panek, judgment of 08/01/04 B.R., judgment of 16/09/03 Skawińska, judgment of 16/09/03 Bogacz, judgment of 09/05/2006 Wojda, judgment of 08/11/2005 Bzdyra, judgment of 15/11/2005 Wróbel, judgment of 20/07/2004 Dzierżanowski, judgment of 27/06/2006