The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Kr\u00f3lak and Others v. Poland,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov, President, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Poland lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Polish Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. In all three applications, the Government submitted unilateral declarations 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 \u00a7 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v.\u00a0Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a075, ECHR 2003-VI).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 AND\u00a0ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n 12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the applications out of the list;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov _________________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nFIRST SECTION<\/strong>
\nCASE OF KR\u00d3LAK AND OTHERS v. POLAND<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 5983\/22 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 December 2023<\/p>\n
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n