CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 209 July 2017 Załuska, Rogalska and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 12452/08, 33010/09, 34524/09 et al. Decision 20.6.2017 [Section I] Article 37 Article 37-1 Striking out applications Respect for human rights Individual and general measures taken pursuant to Rutkowski and Others pilot judgment in length-of-proceedings cases: struck out Facts – In its pilot judgment in Rutkowski and Others v.   Poland (72287/10, 7   July 2015, Information Note   187 ) the Court found a violation of Articles 6 §   1 and 13 of the Convention on account of the length of judicial proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy for such complaints. As regards the Article   6 complaint it noted that while Poland had recognised the need to take action to expedite and modernise the procedure, further, consistent long-term efforts were required. As to the Article   13 complaint, although Polish law afforded a compensatory remedy under a Law of 17   June 2004 (2004 Act) for undue delays in proceedings, the level of compensation awards made by the domestic courts was generally inadequate. In these circumstances, it indicated general measures under Article   46 of the Convention requiring Poland to secure through appropriate legal or other measures, the national courts’ compliance with the relevant principles under Article   6 §   1 and Article   13. On 30 November 2016 the Government passed legislation (the 2016 Amendment) amending the 2004 Act so as to require the domestic courts to apply the Act in accordance with the standards deriving from the Convention. In response to two specific failings of Polish practice that had been identified by the Court in Rutkowski and Others , the 2016 Amendment also (i)   required the domestic courts to assess the reasonableness of the length of proceedings as a whole (rather than in fragments as had been the practice up till then) and (ii)   set minimum levels for awards of compensation in length-of-proceedings cases. The 400 applications in the instant case, which also concerned length-of-proceedings complaints under Article   6 §   1 and Article   13, were communicated to the Government after the pilot judgment had been delivered. The Government subsequently submitted a series of unilateral declarations acknowledging a violation of those provisions, offering compensation and making a series of proposals regarding general measures to speed up judicial proceedings in Poland. A majority of the applicants accepted the Government’s offer of compensation but a substantial minority considered that they should be awarded significantly higher levels of compensation. Law – Article   37 §   1: In deciding whether the applications should be struck out following the unilateral declarations, the Court had to have regard not only to the applicants’ situation vis-à-vis individual measures taken by the State but also to measures aimed at resolving the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order identified in the principal judgment as the source of the violation. (a)     Individual measures – The sums offered by the Government amounted on average to 50-60% of what would have been the Court’s award if there had been no remedy in Poland. As regards those applicants who had not accepted the Government’s offer, the Court considered that in cases involving, as here, many similarly situated victims a unified approach was called for in order to ensure that the applicants remained aggregated and that no disparity in the level of the awards would have a divisive effect on the applicants. (b)     General measures – The Polish Government, by the various measures adopted in implementation of the pilot judgment and promised legislative actions stated in their unilateral declarations, had demonstrated an active and reliable commitment to take measures intended to remedy the systemic defects in the Polish legislation and judicial practice identified by the Court. While, by virtue of Article   46 of the Convention, it was for the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the general measures taken by the Government and their implementation as far as the supervision of the Court’s judgment was concerned, the Court in exercising its own power to decide whether to strike the cases out of the list could not but rely on the Government’s actual and promised remedial action as an important positive factor going to the issue of “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”. Having regard to the object of the pilot judgment and the fact that within some 15   months after it becoming final the respondent State had introduced general measures in the interests of other persons similarly affected, as well as committed itself to taking such necessary measures in the future, the Court was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols. Accordingly, it found no reason to justify a continued examination of the applications. Conclusion : struck out (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes