CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 juin 2001

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31 June 2001 Rajak v. Croatia - 49706/99 Judgment 28.6.2001 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Effectiveness of complaint under Section   59   § 4 of the Constitutional Court Act as a remedy in respect of the length of proceedings The case concerns the length of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant in June 1975 and still pending at first instance. (The Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia in 1997.) Law : Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) –   Even assuming a request under Section 59 § 4 of the Constitutional Court Act is an effective remedy in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings, the effectiveness of such a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole. The provision entered into force in September 1999, by which time the proceedings had already lasted some 24 years, out of which one year, ten months and 19 days fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. Even if the applicant had filed a request under Section 59 § 4, any decision which might have speeded up the proceedings could not have made up for any delays which had already occurred.   Accordingly, in the circumstances of the case, such a request cannot be considered an effective remedy and the preliminary objection must be dismissed. Article 6 § 1 – The reasonable time requirement has not been met. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court made awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   © 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