CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 2000

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 17 April 2000 Dewicka v. Poland - 38670/97 Judgment 4.4.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: violation Facts : The applicant, born in 1911, requested the telephone communications office to conclude a contract with her for the installation of a telephone in her apartment, in view of her age and poor state of health. She was told that it was technically impossible at the time. In June 1993 she sued the office. Her claim was eventually dismissed in August 1997. She appealed and her claim was upheld in January 1998. However, by March 1999 she had been unable to obtain an enforcement order from the first instance court. Law : Article 6 § 1 - The proceedings began in June 1993 and ended, with regard to the merits, in January 1998. However, the applicant was then unable to institute enforcement proceedings and in such circumstances these must be regarded as an integral part of the proceedings on the merits. The proceedings had thus lasted 5 years 9 months by March 1999. The case concerned the determination of the right to enter into a simple contract and the fact that it was necessary to obtain expert evidence on a technical question did not in itself render the case complicated. What was at stake for the applicant was undoubtedly of crucial importance to her and the courts were thus obliged to show special diligence. However, the first instance court only showed a level of diligence which would possibly be acceptable in an average civil case, without showing any special promptness. Moreover, it failed for almost a year to produce an enforcement order, although this was a purely technical matter, for which no explanation has been given. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 - Although the applicant had not submitted any claims after the application had been declared admissible, the Court considered that she had suffered non-pecuniary damage on account of the protracted length of the proceedings and awarded her 15,000 zlotys (PLN) in that respect.   © 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