FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BONA v. POLAND
(Application no. 10708/23)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 February 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bona v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Erik Wennerström, President,
 Georgios A. Serghides,
 Alain Chablais, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 February 2023. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr S. Łoboda, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk. 3. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW
THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that she had no effective remedy in this connection. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 9. In the leading case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015, the Court already found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the length of judicial proceedings. 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 11. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 13: violation