Information Note on the Court’s case-law 11
October 1999
Humen v. Poland [GC] - 26614/95
Judgment 15.10.1999 [GC]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of civil proceedings: no violation
Facts: In 1983 the applicant was convicted of participating in a violent demonstration. In 1993 the conviction was quashed. He lodged a request for compensation for wrongful conviction and unjustified detention. Following a hearing in June 1994, the case was adjourned sine die for evidence of any causal link between the detention and the applicant's ill-health to be obtained. The applicant subsequently refused to submit to a brain tomography. In June 1995 his claims were granted in part. This decision was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted to the first instance court, which ordered fresh medical reports. After several adjournments, the applicant was awarded compensation in March 1996.
Law: Article 6 § 1: The period to be examined began on 1 May 1993 (date of Poland's recognition of the right of petition coming into effect) and ended in March 1996. The proceedings thus lasted almost 2 years 11 months. Certain features of the case were complex (the need to obtain medical evidence and evidence relating to the applicant's employment and loss of earnings). Although the applicant's conduct in the initial stages cannot be regarded as hindering the progress of the case, his subsequent behaviour was scarcely consistent with the diligence which should normally be shown by a claimant. The court took 14 months to prepare for the first hearing and the existence of a backlog is not a convincing explanation for the entire length, but otherwise there was no substantial period of inactivity for which the authorities could be held responsible - hearings were held at reasonable intervals and adjourned only when it was necessary to obtain evidence and even during a one-year adjournment the court did not remain passive. On the whole, the authorities did not fail to act with all due diligence and the length cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Conclusion: no violation (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy