CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 juin 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   326 14.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KRASUSKI v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Krasuski v. Poland (application no. 61444/00).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, on account of the existence in Polish law of an effective remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Waldemar Krasuski, was a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lived in Zielona Góra (Poland). Following his death in December 2004, the Court gave his widow leave to continue the proceedings.   On 1 February 1996 the applicant and his wife sued the owners of a company with which they had concluded a contract to carry out building work on their house, seeking compensation for damage caused to the house by the contractors.   The proceedings ended on 20 June 2002 when the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant. Its judgment became final as the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 15 February 2000 and declared partly admissible on 18 November 2003. Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted that his case had not been heard within a “reasonable time” as required by Article 6 § 1. He also complained that he had not had an effective remedy under Polish law in respect of the excessive length of proceedings, in breach of Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The Court observed that the proceedings in question had lasted almost six years and five months.   The Court agreed with the Polish Government that the case had been of a certain complexity and had required the production of expert reports. It considered that the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings and noted that the Polish authorities had displayed due diligence in dealing with his case.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that, taken as a whole, the length of the proceedings had satisfied the reasonable-time requirement and had accordingly not infringed Article 6 § 1.   Article 13 of the Convention   In previous similar cases the Court had held that the action under Article 417 of the Civil Code relied on by the Government was not an effective remedy for complaining before the domestic courts of the length of proceedings.   However, in view of recent developments in Polish law, notably the entry into force of an Act on 17 September 2004, the Court found good reason to reconsider its position. It noted that section 16 of the 2004 Act had created a new legal situation in relation to that subsisting previously. The possibility of seeking damages for the excessive length of proceedings now had an explicit legal basis and there was no longer any ambiguity as to the possibility of bringing such an action.   The Court did not find any prima facie evidence to support the applicant’s argument that the remedy in question would be illusory; the applicant had merely asserted that the remedy would not be effective. Furthermore, the argument that no established judicial practice had yet resulted from the application of the 2004 Act was not decisive.   It was true that the effectiveness of the remedy depended on the Polish civil courts’ ability to handle such actions with diligence and attention, especially in terms of the time taken to examine them. It was also true that the level of compensation awarded at domestic level could constitute an important element for the assessment of the adequacy of the remedy. However, mere doubts as to the effectiveness of a newly created remedy did not dispense the applicant from having to use it.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that from 17 September 2004, the date on which the 2004 Act had entered into force, an action for damages under Article 417 of the Civil Code had attained a sufficient level of certainty to become an “effective remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for an applicant complaining in the Polish courts of a violation of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The Court therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.   Judge Pavlovschi expressed a partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.