CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 septembre 2010

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC86EC395 { width:21.18pt; display:inline-block } .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. 133 August-September 2010 Rumpf v. Germany - 46344/06 Judgment 2.9.2010 [Section V] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to introduce effective remedy for length-of-proceedings claims within one year   Facts – The case concerned the excessive length of civil proceedings before the domestic courts (over thirteen years for four levels of jurisdiction) and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in such cases. After unanimously finding violations of Article 6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention in the applicant’s case, the European Court turned to the question of general measures. Law – Article 46: Between 1959 and 2009 the Court had delivered judgments in more than 40 cases against Germany finding repeated violations of the Convention on account of the length of civil proceedings. In its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Sürmeli v.   Germany ([GC], no.   75529/01, 8   June 2006, Information Note no.   87), it had pointed to the lack of an effective remedy and drawn the respondent Government’s attention to its obligation to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, general measures to put an end to the violation found and to redress as far as possible its effects. While the Court welcomed a recent legislative initiative by the Government aiming to address the problem, it noted that Germany had so far failed to put into effect any measures aimed at improving the situation, despite the Court’s substantial and consistent case-law on the matter. The systemic character of the problem was further evidenced by the fact that some fifty-five applications against Germany concerning similar problems were currently pending before the Court and the number of such applications was constantly increasing. Accordingly, the violations found in the applicant’s case were the consequence of the respondent Government’s shortcomings and a practice incompatible with the Convention. Germany was therefore required to introduce without delay, and at the latest within one year of the Court’s judgment becoming final, an effective domestic remedy against excessively long court proceedings. In the interim, the Court would continue to process similar pending cases in the usual manner in order to remind the respondent State on a regular basis of its obligation under the Convention and in particular its obligation resulting from the judgment in the applicant’s case. Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.     © 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