Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152
May 2012
Taron v. Germany (dec.) - 53126/07
Decision 29.5.2012
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Proceedings under Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations Act: effective domestic remedy
Facts – On 3 December 2011 the Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations Act entered into force in Germany. It was passed in response to the European Court’s pilot judgment in Rumpf v. Germany* which required Germany to introduce an effective domestic remedy in length-of-proceedings cases. It covers both civil and criminal proceedings and combines a mechanism for expediting proceedings with a right to bring a subsequent claim for compensation. A transitional provision provides that the Act applies to past and pending proceedings whose duration may or has already become the subject of a complaint before the European Court. Compensation claims under the transitional provision had to be lodged with the relevant courts by 3 June 2012.
In an application to the European Court lodged in November 2007, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of proceedings he had brought to challenge a construction permit. The Court began by examining, in the light of the new domestic legislation, whether he had exhausted domestic remedies.
Law – Article 35 § 1: There was no reason to doubt that the applicant was entitled to lodge a claim with the domestic courts under the transitional provision. The Act had been enacted to address the issue of excessive length of domestic proceedings in an effective and meaningful manner, taking account of the Convention requirements. In particular, compensation was to be determined with regard to the individual circumstances of the case, the length of the delays and the consequences for the applicant. Finally, compensation was to be awarded irrespective of the establishment of fault. Despite the lack of any established practice on the part of the domestic courts in the few months since the Act had entered into force, there was no reason as yet to believe that the new remedy would not afford an opportunity to obtain adequate and sufficient compensation or not offer reasonable prospects of success. Although applicants would be required to exhaust a domestic remedy introduced after the date they lodged their application to the European Court only in exceptional circumstances, such circumstances existed in the instant case: firstly, once a domestic compensatory remedy was introduced, it became particularly important for the complaints to be considered in the first place and without delay by the national authorities; secondly, it was of particular importance that the applicant was entitled to bring his claims to the domestic courts under the transitional provision as this reflected the legislator’s intention to grant redress at domestic level to those who already had applications pending before the Court. That position might be subject to review in the future depending, in particular, on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent case-law under the Act in line with the Convention requirements. The applicant was therefore required to make use of the new domestic remedy.
Conclusion: inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).
(See also Garcia Cancio v. Germany (dec.), no. 19488/09, 29 May 2012)
* Rumpf v. Germany, no. 46344/06, 2 September 2010, Information Note no. 133.
© 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