Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=07.07.2015&Aktenzeichen=72287%2F10
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:16:32+00:00

Document:
72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 175 and 182-83, 7 July 2015; Valada Matos das Neves v. Portugal, no. 73798/13, §§ 73 and 99, 29 October 2015 (a contrario); in the same sense, with respect to the assessment of whether the amount awarded at the domestic level is sufficient to deprive an applicant of his or her victim status, see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 214-15, ECHR 2006-V).
L'État doit également appliquer ces mesures à l'égard des autres personnes se trouvant dans la même situation que le requérant, l'objectif pour lui devant être de résoudre les problèmes qui ont conduit la Cour à son constat de violation (voir, parmi d'autres, Rutkowski et autres c. Pologne, nos 72287/10 et al., § 200, 7 juillet 2015 ; Alisic et autres c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, Croatie, Serbie, Slovénie et l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 60642/08, § 142, CEDH 2014 ; Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 83 ; Broniowski c. Pologne, [GC], no 31443/96, §§ 192-193, CEDH 2004-V et les références qui y sont citées).
L'État doit également appliquer ces mesures à l'égard des autres personnes se trouvant dans la même situation que le requérant, l'objectif pour lui devant être de résoudre les problèmes qui ont conduit la Cour à son constat de violation (voir, parmi d'autres, Broniowski, précité, § 192-193, Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 83, Alisic et autres c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, Croatie, Serbie, Slovénie et l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 60642/08, § 142, CEDH 2014, et Rutkowski et autres c. Pologne, nos 72287/10, 13927/11 et 46187/11, § 200, 7 juillet 2015, et références citées).
Should the efforts made by the Government to tackle the underlying Convention problem or the remit of the envisaged reform prove to be insufficient, the Court may reassess the need to apply the pilot-judgment procedure to this type of case (see Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, §§ 32-33 and 35, 16 July 2015, and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 203-206, 219 et passim, 7 July 2015).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 160, 7 July 2015).
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessively lengthy judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Law of 17 June 2004 on the right to have a case examined in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postepowaniu sadowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwloki - "the 2004 Act"), are presented in the Court's judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 75-92, 7 July 2015) and also in decision in Zaluska, Rogalska and Others v. Poland (dec.), nos.
Having regard to the facts of the present case, the principles established by the Court in respect of an "effective remedy" and the characteristics of redress required at national level for a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, can the combination of remedies under the Code of Administrative Procedure (Article 37), the Administrative Courts Act of 2002 (sections 149 and 154) and the 2004 Act be regarded as "effective" for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, in particular, Kudla v. Poland, §§ 157-159; Scordino (no. 1) v. Italy, [GC] no. 36813/97, §§ 195-216, with further references and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 172-175, 7 July 2015)?.
The domestic court focused its examination of the remedy on the question whether the trial court had acted with due diligence within the existing legislative framework whereas the delays in the proceedings may also stem from other factors such as defiant legislative regulations for which the ultimate responsibility lies with the respondent state (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, § 184, 7 July 2015).
Should the efforts made by the Government to tackle the underlying Convention problem prove to be insufficient, the Court may reassess the need to apply the pilot-judgment procedure to this type of cases (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 203-06, 219 et passim, 7 July 2015; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, §§ 32-33 and 35, 16 July 2015, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11 and 4 others, § 135, 15 March 2016).
However, the Court is prepared to change its approach as to the potential effectiveness of the remedy in question, should the practice of the domestic courts show, in the long run, that applicants are being refused on formalistic grounds, that compensation proceedings are excessively long, that compensation awards are insufficient or are not paid promptly, or that domestic case-law is not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 179 et seq., 7 July 2015; Stella and Others, cited above, § 63; Atanasov and Apostolov, cited above, § 66; Bizjak, cited above, § 44; and Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 41, 30 April 2013, and the authorities cited therein).
72287/10 and 2 others, § 178, 7 July 2015).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 200
 § 142
 § 83
 § 192
 § 83
 § 142
 § 200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 43
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 160
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 184
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 135
 v. 
 § 63
 § 66
 § 44
 v. 
 § 41
 § 178