Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=57220/00
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:18:57+00:00

Document:
As regards the case-law of domestic courts, the Court has already shown that it is aware of the problem in cases where it has taken note of rulings affording new domestic remedies to applicants (see Di Sante v. Italy (dec.), no. 56079/00, 24 June 2004; and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-...; see also Giummarra and Others v. France (dec.), no. 61166/00, 12 June 2001; Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Broca and Texier-Micault v. France, nos.
Mifsud ./. Frankreich (Entsch.), [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 57220/00, Rdnr. 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, Hartman, a.a.O., Rdnr. 81, und S. ./. Deutschland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 75529/01, Rdnr. 99, ECHR 2006 -).
In contrast to the cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, where the Court accepted in principle that a compensatory remedy alone might suffice (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V, and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009 -...), the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. Indeed, the special importance attached by the Convention to that provision requires, in the Court's view, that the States parties establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism in order to put an end to any such treatment rapidly.
La Cour rappelle que, dans l'arrêt Kudla c. Pologne du 26 octobre 2000 ([GC], no 30210/96, § 156, CEDH 2000-VII), elle a jugé que l'interprétation correcte de l'article 13 est que « cette disposition garantit un recours effectif devant une instance nationale permettant de se plaindre d'une méconnaissance de l'obligation, imposée par l'article 6 § 1, d'entendre les causes dans un délai raisonnable » (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Hartman c. République tchèque, no 53341/99, § 81, CEDH 2003-VIII (extraits), Mifsud c. France (déc.) [GC], no 57220/00, CEDH 2002-VIII) et Sürmeli, précité, §§ 115-116).
Il résulte tant de l'arrêt Kudla (précité) que de la décision Mifsud c. France ([GC] (déc.), no 57220/00, CEDH 2002-VIII) que, pour être effectif, un recours doit permettre soit de faire intervenir plus tôt la décision des juridictions saisies, soit de fournir aux justiciables une réparation adéquate pour les retards déjà accusés (Kudla, précité, § 159, et Granata c. France (no 2), no 51434/99, § 36, 15 juillet 2003).
The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness: it falls to the respondent State to establish that these conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Leandro Da Silva v. Luxembourg, no. 30273/07, §§ 40 and 42, 11 February 2010; and Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014).
With regard to complaints about the protraction of proceedings provided for by Articles 522 to 529 of the new Code of Civil Procedure in force as of 15 February 2013 (paragraph 73 above), the Court reiterates that an effective remedy must be available both for proceedings that have already ended and for those still pending (Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863/99, § 94, 9 May 2003; Paulino Tomás, cited above; and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
Das Vorhandensein solcher Rechtsbehelfe muss nicht nur in der Theorie, sondern auch in der Praxis hinreichend sicher sein; andernfalls fehlt ihnen die erforderliche Zugänglichkeit und Wirksamkeit (siehe u.a. Mifsud ./. Frankreich (Entscheidung) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 57220/00, Rdnr. 15, EuGHMR 2002-VIII).
It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
La finalité de cette disposition est de ménager aux États contractants l'occasion de prévenir ou redresser les violations alléguées contre eux avant que ces allégations ne soient soumises à la Cour (voir, par exemple, Mifsud c. France (déc.) [GC], no 57220/00, § 15, CEDH 2002-VIII).
The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness: it falls to the respondent State to establish that these conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; and, more recently, Leandro Da Silva v. Luxembourg, no. 30273/07, §§ 40 and 42, 11 February 2010).
GRABERSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 44
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17
 v. 
 § 187
 v. 
 § 99
 § 156
 § 1
 § 81
 § 159
 § 36
 v. 
 § 107
 v. 
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 94
 v. 
 § 17
 v. 
 § 76
 v. 
 § 15
 § 15
 v. 
 § 15
 v. 
 v.