Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 73
March 2005
Charzyński v. Poland (dec.) - 15212/03
Decision 1.3.2005 [Section IV]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Non-exhaustion of remedy capable of accelerating court proceedings and resulting in a compensation award: inadmissible
A law introduced in September 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) allows those involved in court proceedings to file a complaint concerning their length while they are still pending. The appellate court can find a violation of Article 6 and instruct the lower court to take measures to accelerate the proceedings. The appellate court can also award the complainant compensation of up to PLN 10,000 (approximately EUR 2,500). The 2004 Act was enacted in response to the Court’s judgment in Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI, in which it held that the lack of an effective remedy for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time was in violation of Article 13. A Supreme Court resolution of January 2005 strengthened the application of the 2004 Act by providing that its provisions were to be applicable retroactively to the delays that had occurred before the date of its entry into force and which had not yet been remedied. Under a transitional provision the remedy under the 2004 Act was also available to individuals who had lodged applications with the European Court while their domestic proceedings had remained pending, even if those proceedings had subsequently been terminated, provided their applications had not yet been declared admissible by the European Court.
The applicant complained of having been denied a hearing within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6, and of having no effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13. He argued that the remedy introduced by the 2004 Act could not be regarded as effective as the maximum amount of just satisfaction which could be awarded by the domestic courts could not exceed PLN 10,000, a much lower sum than would normally be awarded by the Court. Moreover, the new remedy had a very limited application in that, regardless of the circumstances of the case, only one complaint could be pursued within the same year. Finally, complainants were required to pay a court fee of PLN 100 (about EUR 25) for filing a complaint.
The Court noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been pending before the domestic courts and the Court had not yet adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of his case. Accordingly, he was entitled to lodge a complaint under the 2004 Act. As to the effectiveness of the new remedy, the court fee did not appear to be excessive and did not constitute an unreasonable restriction on the applicant’s right to lodge a complaint under the new legislation. In any event, the court fee would be reimbursed should his complaint be considered justified. The limitation that a fresh complaint could be filed at one-year intervals did not seem unreasonable. In addition to the maximum amount of just satisfaction which could be awarded under the 2004 Act, the complainant could file a civil claim for further compensation.
In sum, a complaint under the 2004 Act was capable of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred, and thus satisfied the “effectiveness” test established in the Kudła judgment. Hence the applicant was required by Article 35 § 1 to lodge such a complaint and to ask for expedition of the proceedings and just satisfaction. Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy