CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 octobre 1998

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. October 1998 Podbielski v. Poland - 27916/95 Judgment 30.10.1998 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I. ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A. Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: when Poland recognised right of individual petition. End: proceedings still continuing. Total: five years, five months and twenty-nine days so far. B. Applicable criteria What was at stake: applicant had strong economic interest at time of rampant inflation in securing final adjudication of his claim within reasonable time. Complexity of case: subject matter of litigation not particularly complex – any complexity caused by evolving nature of domestic legal system and uncertainty over correct approach to be adopted by courts clarified by Supreme Court on 28 January 1994 – therefore complexity of case cannot justify length of proceedings. Conduct of applicant: although applicant may have contributed to some extent to delay – this cannot justify length of proceedings. Conduct of national authorities: delay caused to large extent by legislative changes resulting from transition to free-market system and by complexity of procedures – Article 6 § 1 imposes on Contracting States duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements – therefore delay in proceedings mainly attributed to national authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A. Pecuniary damage: Claim dismissed. B. Non-pecuniary damage: Sum awarded.   C. Costs and expenses: Claim dismissed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage only (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