CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 juin 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77 July-August 2005 Krasuski v. Poland - 61444/00 Judgment 14.6.2005 [Section IV] Article 13 Effective remedy Effectiveness of a new remedy concerning length of judicial proceedings: no violation   Facts : In February 1996, the applicant lodged a claim with the courts against a construction company seeking compensation due to the alleged damage caused to his house by this company. The proceedings terminated with a judgment of the Court of Appeal in June 2002. Law : Article 6(1) – The period to be considered was 6 years and nearly 5 months. The hearings had been held at regular intervals and the only, not inordinate, delays had occurred in connection with the taking of expert evidence. Hence, the authorities had displayed due diligence in handling the applicant's case. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). Article 13 – Under this provision a remedy is considered “effective” concerning a complaint on length of proceedings if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts or provide the litigant with adequate redress. In the present case, following the entry into force of the 2004 Law on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (the so-called “Kudla Law”), the possibility of seeking damages under the relevant article of the Civil Code for such complaints now had an explicit legal basis. The mere doubts which the applicant had concerning the newly created statutory remedy did not absolve him from having recourse to it, and it could not be assumed that the Polish courts would not have given proper effect to the new provision. Hence, the Court considered that from the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act, an action for damages based on the relevant provision of the Civil Code had acquired a sufficient level of certainty to become an “effective remedy”. Conclusion : no violation (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